JUDGMENT - I.J. SHAH, J.:---The State has come in appeal against the order of sentence passed against the present respondent, the Original Accused, in Summary Case Nos. 4073/77, 4071/77 and 4072/77 for enhancement of the sentence of fine of Rs. 5/- levied by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar.

2. As in all these three appeals the Appellant-accused is the same and the contravention alleged is also same, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.

3. Briefly stated facts giving rise to these three appeals are that on 9-2-1977 Factory Inspector visited Bothara Engineering Works, a factory belonging to the present Respondent and found that Jaywant Pund, Sudhakar Shinde and Murlidhar Karale were working in the factory but their names were not entered as workers in the register as required by section 62 of the Factories Act. The Factories Inspector, therefore, filed three separate complaints in respects of each of the workers in the Court. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on strength of the evidence before him found that the complainant proved that the present Respondent had contravened the provisions of section 62 of the Factories Act and, therefore, have committed an offence punishable under section 92 of the Factories Act and accordingly convicted the present Respondent. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, however, sentenced him only to pay a fine of Rs. 5/- in each case holding that it was a technical offence. Being aggrieved by the said order, the State has come in appeal seeking to enhance the sentence awarded to the present respondent.

4. On behalf of the State, it is very strenuously contended that having found the accused guilty to contravention of section 62 it was an error to allow the accused to go with a light punishment of Rs. 5/- as a fine in each case. It was contended that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was in error when he thought or considered that it was a technical offence. Now it is true that the contravention though apparently appears to be only a technical one, really has far reaching consequences. One must keep in mind that in the legislations in respect of labour the view that is required to be taken must take into consideration the far reaching effects of the same. The provisions of maintenance of register of workers is made with a view that one should be able to ascertain as to how many workers were being employed by the factory as on the number of labourers employed by the factory, number of the legislation become applicable. Therefore, there is bound to be some temptation of not maintaining proper records of engagement of labourers or workers so that the other legislations, which impose onerous duties on the occupier of the factory, do not become applicable. In view of this, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State is right in saying that the lower Court was in error when considering that the offence was a mere technical one. Now it may be that in a matter which originated in 1978, today in 1990 it may not be even desirable to enhance the sentence because of lapse of such a considerable period. But at the same time, it must be said that the sentence that was passed by the trial Court was only a free bite sentence and the lower Court was in error in taking a lenient view in the matter.

5. However, as the State has come in appeal, the respondent accused gets a chance of contending that his conviction itself is bad in law and rightly so the Respondent-accused has availed of this opportunity and has contended before me that on the material that was before the Lower Court the conviction itself cannot be sustained. It was contended that as per section 62 the liability to maintain the register is imposed on the management and admittedly the present respondent is not a Manager and is an occupier and, therefore, the contravention, if any, has been committed it is not the liability of the present respondent. In support of his contention, reliance is placed on

Click Here to Read the rest of this document