GOVINDA MENON, J. :- This is an appeal against the conviction of the manager of the Gemini Studios, Madras, by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, for having contravened the provisions of the Factories Act and having thereby committed an offence under S.92 of the said Act.

2. The appellant has been found guilty of the following three offences : (1) under S.61 and S.108(2) read with Rule 79 for having failed to specify, or enter, in the notice of periods of work exhibited at the main entrance of the studio, the working hours of the workers engaged in the departments, of directors and artists, cameramen and sound engineers, makeup artists, electricians, editors, laboratorians and still photographers and their assistants; (2) under S.62 read with Rule 80 for having failed to enter the particulars of all the workers engaged in the said department in Form No.12 register; and (3) under S.20 read with Rule 51 for having failed to provide spittoons in the factory as per the type prescribed under Rule 51.

3. The main question that has been argued is whether the studio in which the films are produced is a "factory" within the meaning of the term in the Factories Act and whether the persons employed there are "workers" as defined in the Act. The Factories Act (63 of 1948) is the Act in force which is said to have been contravened; but the studio in question was in existence before this Act was passed and had been registered when the earlier Act 25 of 1934 which was replaced by Act 63 of 1948 was in vogue. The appellant contends that except for the three departments, viz., those connected with carpenters, moulders and tinkers, the rest of the portions of the studio cannot be called a "factory" and that these three departments are housed in a separate building where all the requirements of the Factories Act have already been attended to. The learned Chief Presidency Magistrate did not accept the contentions put forward on behalf of the appellant, but agreeing with the prosecution, convicted the appellant and sentenced him as stated above.

4. Exhibit P.1 is the notice of occupation and notice of work periods relating to this factory given by the appellant on the 7th June 1949 under the provisions of the Act where-under the appellant styles himself as the manager of this factory. It is evidently a notice sent to the Chief Inspector of Factories under S.7(1) of Act 63 of 1948 which corresponds to S.9(1) of the Act of 1934. Ex.P.2 in Form No.11 prescribed under Rule 79 is the notice of the periods of work for the adult workers. Reading Exs.P.1 and P.2 together, it is clear that the appellant has restricted those portions of the studio wherein carpentry, moulding, tinkering, painting etc., are done in connection with the erection and dismantling of sets as a factory and that the other portions do not come within the provisions of the Act. It is not clear from the evidence that the authorities have ever questioned the correctness of the two notices, Ex.P.1 being of 7th June 1949.

5. P.W.1 inspected the Gemini Studio on 2-10-1950. According to him he found the defects mentioned above, which necessitated the filing of the charge-sheet. The evidence before the lower court lay in a short compass, one witness being examined for the prosecution and one for the defence. In addition to the notice of occupation, Ex.P.1, and the Form No.2 prescribed under Rule 79, Ex.P.2, relating to notice of periods of work for adult workers, we have Ex.P.3, a notice by the Inspector of Factories, Second Circle, asking the appellant to show cause why prosecution should not be launched against him for contravening the provisions of the Factories Act and the rules. Ex.P.4 is the reply sent by the appellant to Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.5 is the factory inspection report by the Inspector of Factories. Ex.P.6 is the sanction to prosecute the manager and Ex.P.7 is the notice dated 10-10-1950 issued by the Inspector of Factories.

6. The question that has been elaborately argued at the