JUDGMENT - Gajendragadkar, J.

1. These two appeals arise from orders of acquittal passed by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate in favour of the respondent. In both the cases the respondent was charged under S. 92 of the Factories Act (Act LXIII of 1948). The respondent is the occupier of Wadia Mahal Salt Works which, according to the prosecution case, is a factory as defined under S. 2(m) of the Factories Act. This factory is situated near Koliwada, Sion, Bombay 22. In the case from which criminal appeal No. 761 of 1954 arises, the charge against the respondent was that, before occupying or using the said premises as a factory, he had failed to submit to the Chief Inspector of Factories, Bombay State, a written notice of occupation in form No. 3 as required under S. 7(1) of the Factories Act, and the rules made thereunder. In the companion case from which criminal appeal No. 762 of 1954 arises, the charge was that the respondent had failed to submit to the Chief Inspector of Factories an application in form No. 2 for registration of the factory and grant of licence as required under S. 6 of the Factories Act read with rule 4 of the Bombay Factories Rules, 1950. It appears that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document