Dixit, J.

[1] This is a group of four appeals, each of which arises from a distinct set of facts but all of which raise common questions under the Factories Act, 1948. Before setting out the questions raised, it may be convenient first to refer to the facts in each appeal.

[2] In Criminal Appeal No. 805, the facts are these. The respondent is the manager of a factory called "pistol Bidi Factory", situated at 943-E Ward. 6th Line, shahnpuri, Kolhapur. One V. M. Mardhekar, Junior Inspector of Factories, visited this factory on 13-9-1952, at 2-30 p. m. along with one M. V. Ponkshe, government Labour Officer and Additional Inspector of Factories, Kolhapur. It was alleged that 110 workers wore working in the factory at the time of the visit, but the register of leave with wages (Form No. 18) in respect of a worker named airavan Subrao Ghugre was not maintained in the factory and the worker was not provided with a leave book (Form No. 19). Ghugre was working in the factory for about five years. The prosecution, therefore, alleged that by not maintaining Form no. 18 and not providing Ghugre with Form No. 19, the accused had contravened the provisions of Rs. 94 and 95 read with Rs. 83 and 112, Factories Act, thus rendering himself liable to punishment under Section 92, factories Act, 1948.

[3] At the trial, the complainant gave evidence, and he stated that when he visited the factory, theere were 110 workers working in the tactory and they were engaged in; the process of making and packing 'bidis'. He also stated that the register of leave with wages in respect of three workers including Airavan Subrao ghugre who were working in the factory for five years was not maintained and they were not provided with leave books. He was cross-examined and in cross-examination he stated that 'bidi' workers were working on piece work basis; some were on monthly pay basis, though he had not got a full list of workers working on monthly basis. Checkers and one bamu Mallappa Sonar were on monthly basis and Sonar was paid Rs. 80 per month. According to the complainant, 'bidi' winders were paid on piece work basis and there were some workers who wound 'bidis' at their homes after taking the material from the factory, while some worked in the factory itself. He admitted that there was no specific notification making the Factories Act applicable to the pistol Bidi Factory on the date of the offence and he said that Airavan used to work in the factory.

[4] The statement of the accused was taken and he said that he had nothing to say hut wished to lead evidence, and on the adjourned date of hearing the defence pleader stated that the accused did not wish to lead any evidence. Thereupon arguments were heard and the case stood adjourned for judgment.

[5] The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kolhapur, acquitted the accused, and in support of the order of acquittal he relied upon a judgment delivered by bavdekar J. in -- 'ramnath Shankarlal Chandak v. State', Criminal Revn. Applns. Nos. 685, 686 and 687 of 1952 decided by Bavdekar J. , on 6-10-1952 (Bom. ) (A). He also relied upon the fact that Government Notification mentioned in the judgment was not made applicable to the Pistol Bidi Factory. A judgment of the madras High Court in (Cri. Revn. Appln. No. 125? of 1952 now reported in) --'in re 1c. Chockalingam', was pointed out to the learned magistrate, but he said that it was under the old Act of 1934 and that in any event he was bound by the decision of this Court.

[6] Feeling aggrieved by this order the State has come up in appeal.

[7] In Criminal Appeal No. 806, the facts are these. The complainant Mardhekar visited the Factory oh 13-9. 1952, at 2-30 p. m. when he noticed 110 workers working in the factory at that time. According to the complainant, working hours of the factory were from 12 noon to 4 p. m. and from 5 p. m. to 9 p. m. It was alleged that a drinking water tap was kept in the premises, but it gave water from 4 p. m. to 5 p. m. , th