TIBREWAL, J.- This petition under-section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment dated May 31, 1988 of Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur-city , Jaipur in Criminal Revision No. 22/88 confirming the order of conviction dated April 4, 1985 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Jaipur-city, Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 2206/83, by which the petitioner was convicted under section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-.

2. The petitioner is the proprietor of the firm M/s Rambagh Service Station, Jaipur. This firm is an authorised dealer of M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation for selling petrol and high speed diesel. It runs a petrol pump for selling the petrol and high speed diesel and also a Service Station for cleaning, washing and oiling of the vehicles. On July 20, 1983, the Deputy Chief Inspector, Factories and Boilers, inspected the establishment of the petitioner firm and found that it was not registered under the Factories Act and was being run without a licence. Consequently, a complaint was filed against the petitioner in the court of Judicial Magistrate No. 7, Jaipur-city, Jaipur. The learned Magistrate found that the establishment of the petitioner was functioning without registration and obtaining a licence under section 6 of the Act. Hence, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced under section-92 of the Act read with section-6 as indicated above. The trial Magistrate also gave direction to the petitioner to get his commercial establishment registered under the Factories Act within a period of three months. The revision preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur-city, Jaipur.

3. Normally, after the rejection of the revision petition under section 397 Cr.P.C. confirming the conviction and sentence of the trial court, this Court does not entertain a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. But, an important question of vital importance with regard to interpretation of Section 2 (k) of the Act is involved and there is no reported judgement of this Court on the point involved, while there are divergent views of other High Courts, it has become necessary to decide the same, especially, for the guidance of the subordinate courts.

4. There is no dispute that the commercial establishment of the petitioners firm has two wings : (1) Service Station; and (2) Petrol Pump. It is also not in dispute that they are under the direct control and supervision of the petitioner. It is also undisputed that at the Service Station, run by the petitioner, washing, cleaning and lubricating of the vehicles are made and the aid of power is also taken. At the Petrol Pump the petrol/diesel is stored in an under-ground tank and the same is pumped out to be filled in the vehicles of the customers with the aid of power. On these undisputed facts, I have to consider as to whether the activities of the petitioners firm fall within the definition of Manufacturing Process.

5. The main thrust of Mr. Lodha, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the provisions of the Factories Act do not apply to the petitioners establishment, in as much as, it does not fall within the definition of Factory as no Manufacturing Process is being carried on with or without the aid of power. In order to appreciate the argument of Mr. Lodha, it is necessary to reproduce the definition of Factory and Manufacturing Process as given in the Act.

Section 2 (m) of the Act defines Factory as under : —

"(m) "factory" means any premises including the precincts thereof (i) whereon ten or more workers are working, or were working on any day of the preceding twelve months, and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on with the aid of power, or is ordinarily so carried on, or (ii) whereon twenty or more workers are working, or were working on any day of the preceding twelve months, and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on without the aid of power, or is ordinaril

Click Here to Read the rest of this document