( 1 ) "whether the discretion exercised by the learned Magistrate under Sec. 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in acquitting the accused alleged to have committed the offences under the relevant provisions of the factories Act, 1948 and the Rules made thereunder on the ground of the complainant remaining absent when the cases were called out, is illegal, erroneous and unjust calling for any interferrance by this Court ?" (2) "how indeed this discretion of acquitting the accused under Sec. 256 of the Code, particularly with reference to any of the social beneficial pieces of the legislation is required to be exercised so as to prevent patent miscarriage of justice ?" These two are the leading questions arising for consideration in group of the present four acquittal appeals.

( 2 ) TO state few relevant facts briefly, as far as they are necessary to decide the questions raised above, it may be stated that Mr. L. V. Jaradi, Factory Inspector, Vododra, when on 29-4-1987, visited kanan plastics, a factory of the respondent herein namely Shri Ramanbhai R. Pandya, situated at Vadodra, it was found that the same was working with two of its workers - namely, Jivanbhai Go