Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs A. K. Mitra on 25 April, 2016
Bench: A.M. Badar
apeal38-99
sas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.38 OF 1999
The State of Maharashtra
(Through Shri V.M. Yadav, Assistant Director,
Industrial Safety & Health, Pune (Inspector
of Factories under section 8 of Factories Act,
1948) ..Appellant.
V/s.
A.K. Mitra, Occupier / Manager,
M/s. Surendra Enterprisess, J-342, M.I.D.C.,
Bhosari, Pune - 26. ..Respondent.
Mrs.M.M. Deshmukh, APP for the appellant.
None for the respondent-State.
CORAM : A.M.BADAR, J.
DATED : 25TH APRIL, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By this appeal, the appellant-State is challenging
the Judgment and order passed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Pune in Summary Case No.6/1997 thereby
acquitting the respondent / accused for the offence
apeal38-99
punishable under section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948.
2. Facts in nutshell, leading to the institution of the
present appeal are thus :-
(a) On the basis of a complaint filed by the present
appellant, summary triable case bearing No.6/1997 came to
be registered. According to the complainant, the respondent /
accused is occupier / Manager of M/s. Surendra Enterprises
which is a factory within the meaning of the term assigned by
section 2(m) (i) of the Factories Act, 1948. According to the
the complainant, on 18th October, 1996, the said factory was
visited and inspected. In all four persons were working in the
said factory and when the respondent / accused was asked to
produce the register of adult workers required to be statutorily
maintained under the provisions of Section 62(1) of the
Factories Act, 1948, the respondent / accused failed to
produce the said register and as such, according to the
complainant, the respondent / accused has committed an
offence punishable under section 92 of the Factories Act,
1948.
apeal38-99
(b) After recording the plea of the respondent /
accused, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was pleased to
record the notes of evidence of complainant Vijay Yadav, the
Assistant Director of Industry Safety, Pune. The prosecution
has not adduced any other evidence. Hence at the conclusion
of trial and upon hearing, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
by the impugned judgment and order dated 27 th July, 1998
was pleased to acquit the respondent / accused of the offence
punishable under section 62(1) punishable under section 92 of
the Factories Act, 1948. Being aggrieved by such judgment
and order of acquittal, this appeal against the acquittal is
filed by the complainant.
3. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the appellant-State. Perused the record and
proceedings of the Summary Case No.6/1997. According to
the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, evidence of the
complainant Vijay Yadav is sufficient to establish the guilt of
the accused in not maintaining the register of the adult worker
required to be maintained in the prescribed form under the
provisions of section 62 of the Factories Act, 1948. As such,
according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the
apeal38-99
impugned judgment and order of acquittal is liable to be
quashed and set aside.
4. It is seen that the prosecution has examined only
the complainant. His evidence shows that because of some
accident, he visited the factory premises of the respondent /
accused and found that the accused had failed to maintain the
register of workers employed in the said factory as required
under the provisions of section 62 of the Factories Act.
Evidence of the complainant further shows that he recorded
statements of workers of the said factory. Cross-examination
of the complainant shows that in fact register was maintained
by the respondent / accused in different form. The
complainant denies the suggestion that workers whose names
are recorded by the complainant were not the workers of the
factory but they were workers on trial basis. In other words, it
was tried to be suggested that the names of the persons
recorded by the complainant as workers were in fact
apprentice in the factory.
5. The term 'worker' is described in section 2(l) of the
Factories Act, 1948. As per the provision of section 62 of the
apeal38-99
Factories Act, 1948, Manager of the every factory is required
to maintain register of adult worker disclosing the name,
nature of work, group, shifts and other particulars in respect of
which the worker is employed in the factory. Section 92 of the
Factories Act, 1948 provides for general penalty for any
offence and breach of provisions of section 62 is covered by
section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948.
6. The only question before this Court is whether it is
established by the prosecution that the respondent / accused
failed to maintain the register of adult workers working in the
factory as per the provisions of section 62 of the Factories Act,
1948. The prosecution has not examined any worker much
less the workers whose names are recorded by the
complainant as persons working in the factory. The defence of
the respondent / accused is that the persons whose names are
noted by the complainant were trial workers i.e. apprentice. It
is well settled that apprentice cannot be workmen. The
learned trial Court considered the prosecution evidence
carefully and gave the benefit of doubt to the respondent /
accused by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove
that the persons found present in the factory premises were
apeal38-99
in fact workers as defined by section 2(l) of the Factories Act,
thereby requiring their employer to enter their names in the
register to be maintained under section 62 of the Factories
Act, 1948. View so taken by the learned trial Court cannot be
said to be a perverse view and, therefore, the appeal is devoid
of any merits and hence the order.
(i) The appeal is dismissed.
ig (A.M.BADAR, J.)
