SUPERINTENDENT AND REMEMBRANCER OF LEGAL AFFAIRS Vs. HEWATSON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two appeals by the Government of Bengal ; and they are directed against an order of acquittal passed by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, on 16th December 1933, in regard to two separate charges, following upon complaints made against Mr. H.E. Watson, as Director, Statesman Printing Press, by the Chief Inspector of Factories, Bengal on 9 November 1933. The complaints made were: (i) Under Section 41 (a) read with Section 28, and (ii) Under Section 43 (c) read with Section 35, Indian Factories Act.

(2.) The case for the prosecution was that the Inspector of Factories inspected the factory, the Statesman Printing Press, on 15 and 19 October 1933, and found that one printer, five proof readers, and seven compositors in the advertisement section were employed on different dates beyond the time limit of eleven hours per day, as prescribed by Section 28, Indian Factories Act. It was further alleged that the register of persons employed as prescribed by Section 35 of the Act, was not correctly maintained, regard being had to the facts that no entries were made in the register after 17 October, that specified hours of work of the persons employed were not entered in the register, and that different shifts in which the workers were employed were not shown.

(3.) In the written statement filed in Court by Mr. Watson, it was stated that during the dates between which the offences were alleged to have been committed, he was not in India, and he had given over charge to Mr. Hemmin, the Director of the Statesman Ltd., that no charge could lie against him in respect of matters which took place in his absence, and without his knowledge. It was further mentioned in the written statement that the accused person was not the occupier of the premises. It was therefore pleaded in defence that no penalty could be inflicted under the Indian Factories Act, on the accused, placed on his trial. So far as the charge Under Section 28 read with Section 41(a) was concerned, it was stated on the side of the defence that the thirteen persons referred to in the petition of complaint were not manual labourers; that they were persons who used their educational qualifications, were experts, and were engaged in work of supervision or confidential work.