A S AGARWAL Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision by one Mr. A.S. Agarwal who has been convicted by a First Class Magistrate in a summary trial of an offence under Section 23, Boilers Act, and has been fined Rs. 200. The facts of the case are very simple. The case was instituted upon the complaint of the Chief Inspector of Factories and Boilers. It appears that the applicant is the Manager of a dairy owned by Messrs. L. Moti Lal and Sons, Army Contractors. For the purposes of the dairy it is necessary to clean and sterilize utensils used for keeping milk and other products. In order to sterilize such vessels a contrivance was in use at the said dairy which consisted of a closed tin canister with a capacity of more than 7 gallons with two stopcocks, one on the top and the other at the bottom placed upon a brick furnace. It is admitted and indeed cannot be denied that this contrivance generates steam under pressure. It appears that the Chief Inspector of Boilers happened to arrive on the spot one day and saw the contrivance while id was actually being worked. He found that steam was being generated under pressure. Thereupon he made a complaint to the District Magistrate with the result that the applicant was tried for an offence under Section 23, Boilers Act, and convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. The substance of the argument on behalf of the applicant is that the contrivance which was in use at his dairy does not fall within the purview of the definition of "boiler" as contained in Section 2(b), Boilers Act of 1923. The said definition runs as follows: "Boiler" means any closed vessel exceeding 5 gallons in capacity which is used expressly tot generating steam under pressure.

(2.) NOW the contention is that the contrivance which was being used at the applicant's dairy was not a thing "used expressly for generating steam under pressure." Great emphasis is laid upon the use of the word "expressly" and it is argued that the steam generated under pressure must be used as such in order to justify the finding that the contrivance is used expressly for generating steam under pressure. The only use to which the steam was being put was the cleaning of vessels and it is contended upon that basis that the contrivance does not fall within the definition of a boiler. I am entirely unable to accept this contention. I think the clear meaning of the definition is that the definite and clear object of a contrivance should be to generate steam under pressure. It is evident that the contrivance in question was designed for that very object and for no other. The use to which the steam was ultimately put is to my mind (quite irrelevant to the issue. The result therefore is that I see no reason to interfere with the applicant's conviction and sentence and dismiss this application.