( 1 ) THE facts giving rise to this petition broadly stated are that the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 are the General Manager and the Service Engineer respectively of the Indequip Engineering Ltd. Ahmedabad. The Indequip Engineering Ltd. has been manufacturing and supplying machines such as Drying Range Machine to various industrial concerns. One such machine was supplied to the Aruna Mills Ltd. in Ahmedabad. After supplying the same that machine was erected and handed over to the Aruna Mills Ltd. on 2-5-67 as per the specifications and other terms and conditions mentioned in the correspondence exchanged between the two Companies. The respondent No. 1 has been working as the Manager of the Aruna Mills Ltd. and respondent No. 2 was working as a Sales Representative of the Indequip Engineering Ltd.

( 2 ) AT about 3-55 p. m. on 1st June 1967 an accident took place in the Bleaching Department of the Aruna Mills Ltd. which resulted in injuries to three workers employed in the said Mills. That led Mr. U. A. Pandya the Inspector of Factories to visit the Mills on that very day and he made necessary inquiry about the accident. Then the State of Gujarat at the instance of the Legal Assistant Factory Department of the Govt. of Gujarat Ahmedabad filed three different complaints Nos. 2136 to 2138 on 25-8-67 in the Court of the City Magistrate Ahmedabad against respondent No. 1-the Manager of the Aruna Mills Ltd. inter alia alleging that he had contravened the provisions or sec. 92 of the Factories Act 1948 read with Rule 61 (7) of the Gujarat Factories Rules read with sec. 31 of the Factories Act 1948 In the meantime the respondent No. 1 filed three complaints Nos. 2513 to 2515 in the same Court against these petitioners and respondent No. 2 under sec. 101 of the Factories Act inter alia alleging that they were responsible for the contravention of those provisions in respect of which he had been prosecuted by the State. The process was directed to be issued against them by the learned Magistrate in respect of the said offences.

( 3 ) THE petitioners appeared before the Court in pursuance of the process issued against them and presented an application before the learned Magistrate inter alia contending that there was no privity of contract and/or any connection or relation between the accused and the complainant and that in no case the provisions of sec. 101 of the Factories Act can be attracted so as to require the Court to proceed against them. The complaint was thus said to be not competent under the provisions of the Act. After hearing the learned advocates appearing for the parties the learned Magistrate rejected the same. In his view since he had already issued the process against the accused in the complaint to which the summons procedure applied be had no other alternative but to proceed to hear the complainant and take all such evidence led by him as contemplated in sec. 244 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code and that therefore it was not open to him to consider the question as to whether there was a prima facie case against the accused or not. Feeling dissatisfied with that order passed on 19-12-67 by Mr. N K. Bharwad City Magistrate 11th Court Ahmedabad the petitioners-original accused Nos. 1 and 3 have come in revision before this Court.

( 4 ) THE contention of Mr. Trivedi the learned advocate for the petitioners was that there is no provision which debars the Magistrate from hearing any preliminary points raised in the case though no doubt provided they were the points of law and that they arose on the basis of the allegations contained in the complaint. In the present case according to him the trial had not proceeded and as soon as the process in the case was served on them they appeared before the learned Magistrate and raised the point that the complaint against them was not competent in the sense that it was not open to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court by reason of the provisions contained in sec. 101 of th