The central legal point established is that the premises with diesel generating sets did not constitute a factory under the Factories Act and Bihar Factories Rules, and therefore, the proceedings under Section 92 of the Act were not justified.

G.S.Chaube, J.

1. The only moot question of law involved in the abovemen-tioned applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is whether the premises or precincts of an administrative office of a company or any Institution where diesel generating set(s) are installed for generating energy (electricity) for the use in the office premises during load-shedding by the State Electricity Board, is a factory to attract the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 (in short, the Act) and Bihar Factories Rules, 1950 (in short, the Rules) requiring registration of the premises as such with incidental obligation of maintaining certain Registers, etc., more particularly, as required under Rules 85, 86, 87 and 104 of the abovementioned Rules, so that non-compliance therewith attracts the penal provision of Section 92 of the Act?

2. The short facts giving rise to these applications are that on 29.8.97 Sri Gopal Kumar, the Factories Inspector of Ranchi Circle No. II visited Darbhanga House in the town of Ranchi wherein the administrative office of the Central Coalfields Ltd. is located, and found that as many as 6 power generating sets of 970 KVA and 2 transformers of 750 KVA were functioning. He also learnt that as many as 13 persons were employed by the company for operating those power generating sets, the break up being 3 foremen, 3 helpers and 7 others meant for cleaning those sets. He asked for registration certificate, but the same was not produced as the premises was not registered as a factory with the Chief Factories Inspector. On demand, Registers of Adult workers, Notice regarding working hours of Adult workers, Register respecting leave with wages, and Accident Register were also not produced. The premises was also not approved by the then Factories Inspector in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules. At the relevant time, the petitioner in Crim. Misc. no. 1743/98R and 3350/98R was posted as Director (Technical P & P); whereas the other petitioners, namely, J. L. Mehta and K. P. Sinha were posted as Chief General Manager and Chief General Manager (Administration) respectively, who are petitioners in Crim. Misc. no. 1685/98R and 3611/98R. When the Factories Inspector (opposite party no. 2, in all the four applications) found that the premises where power generating sets were installed and were functioning at the time of his visit/inspection and Registers mentioned above were not produced, he served the petitioners with a copy of the inspection report dt. 3.10.97 requiring them to get the premises registered and plans respecting thereof approved. When the directions given by the Factories Inspector were not complied with, a reminder dt. 21.10.97 was also sent. In the meantime, the petitioners initially sought some time for compliance with the directions regarding approval of the plan of the premises where power generating sets were installed, but ultimately they sent a letter dt. 16.10.97 asserting that the premises does not fall within the definition of a factory as defined under the Factories Act. Therefore, they were not liable to get the same registered and plans etc. approved. When the directions of opp. party no. 2 were not complied with, he filed two written complaints against the petitioners in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Ranchi one on 25.11.97 for their prosecution under Section 92 of the Act for violation of the provisions of Section 6 of the Act and Rules 4, 5 and 10 of the Rules. In that complaint, petitioner Balaswamy Akala, the Director (Technical P & P) was arrayed as accused no. 1 while petitioners J. L. Mehta and K. P. Sinha were arrayed as accused nos. 2 and 3. Another written complaint dt. 27.11.97 was filed for the prosecution of the petitioners under Section 92 of the Act for violation of the provisions of Rule 102 of the Rules. In that complaint also petitioners Balaswamy Akala, J. L. Mehta and K. P. Sinha were arrayed as accused nos. 1, 2 and 3. The