The main legal point established is that violations of the Factories Act, including failure to obtain prior permission and licensing, are serious offences punishable under Sec.92 of the Act.

Appellant is the Accused in C.C.No.10 of 1996 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram. By the judgment dated 30.12.1996, Accused was convicted under Sec.6 and Sec.92 of Factories Act, 1948 r/w Rule 3 of 1950, Sec.6(1) and Sec.92 of Factories Act, 1948 r/w Rule 4 of 1950 and Sec.7(1) and Sec.92 of Factories Act, 1948 r/w Rule 12 of 1950 and imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- on each count; total fine amount of Rs.15,000/-.

2. The Respondent / Complainant is the Factories Inspector, Villupuram. The Appellant / Accused - Dhanalakshmi is the owner and the occupier of Sri Siva Blue Metals, where stone crushing work is being carried on. On 20.06.1996 - 3.30 p.m., Factories Inspector, Villupuram inspected Sri Siva Blue Metals. At that time, he had noted six men and five women working. The stone crushing work was being done, installing the machinery of 40 H.P. At the time of inspection, Factories Inspector noted the following violations:-

Sec.7(1) r/w Rule 12

Violation of Sec.7(1)

r/w Rule 12

Requiring previous permission in writing of the State Government or the Chief Inspector to be obtained for the site on which the factory to be situated and for the construction or extension of any factory ;

For the purpose of considering applications for such permission the submission of plans and specifications.

Appellant / Accused has not obtained prior permission for the plan;

Nature of the plan was not submitted in violation of Sec.6(1)(b) r/w Rule 3.

Rule 6(1)(d) r/w Rule 4 Violation of Sec.6(1)(d) r/w Rule 4 The Rule may require for the-

(i) Registration of factories or any class or description of factories,

(ii) Licensing of factories or any class or description of factories,

(iii) Fees payable for such registration and licensing and the renewal of licenses.

Total amount of power installed was 40 H.P.;

Six men and five women were employed in the stone crushing unit;

Non obtaining of registration of Factories / licensing of factories and non payment of fees payable for such registration, which is in violation of Sec.6(1)(d) r/w Rule 4.

Section 7(1) imposes an obligation on the occupier of a factory to send a written notice, containing prescribed particulars, to the Chief Inspector at least 15 days before an occupier begins to occupy or use a premises as a factory--

The name and situation of the factory;

The name and address of the occupier and such others.

Not sent the written notice to the Chief Inspector in the form with prescribed particulars as contemplated under Sec.7(1) within 15 days prior to occupying or using the premises as a factory; thereby violating Sec.7(1) r/w Rule 12.

All the above violations are punishable under Sec.92 of the Factories Act.

3. Complainant / Factories Inspector prepared the Inspection Report. Show cause notice was served upon the Appellant / Accused. Since no reply was forthcoming, complaint was launched against the Appellant / Accused for violations of provisions of Factories Act on three counts as noted above. The facts constituting the gist of the offences were set forth in the charge.

4. In the trial Court, when the Accused was questioned, she has admitted the offences. On her admission, the trial convicted the Accused under Ss.6 of Factories Act, 1948 r/w Rule 3 of 1950, 6(1) of Factories Act, 1948 r/w Rule 4 of 1950 and 7(1) of Factories Act, 1948 r/w Rule 12 of 1950 and imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- on each count; total fine amount of Rs.15,000/-. Aggrieved over the imposition of fine of Rs.15,000/-, the Appellant / Accused has preferred this appeal.

5. In the Memorandum of Grounds, it is stated that for similar other Accused, the uniform fine amount of Rs.100/- is imposed and the Appellant / Accused ought to have been viewed of similar footing imposing a fine of Rs.100/-. Assailing the quantum of fine as harsh, the learned counsel for the Appellant / Accused has raised the following three contentions:-

(i) Placing reliance upon the case of State of Gujarat v. Dineshchandra