Complaint has to be filed by Inspector of Factories.

This appeal by the State, represented by the learned Public Prosecutor, is against the judgment of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sattur, acquitting the respondent in C.C.No. 371 of 1983 on his file.

2. The respondent was prosecuted for violation of the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 and the rules framed there under. The prosecution case is that P.W.1, the Assistant Inspector of Factories, Sivakasi, inspected Sabai Match Industries, belonging to the respondent at 11.30 a.m. on 14-6-1982. During the course of his inspection, the respondent was present P.W.I found that totally 26 men and 118 women apart from 5 minors were working in the factory. Since no child who had not Completed 14 years of age, shall be required or allowed to work in any factory in terms of section 67 of the Factories Act, P.W. 1 would depose that it is an illegality. P.W.1 also found that Form 25-B relating to Time-card had not been maintained. No acknowledgements had also been obtained from the labourers and this was in violation ofS.112 read with Rule 103-B of the Factories Act and Rules. P.W.I further noticed violation ofS.83 read with Rule 87 of the Factories Act and Rules in that Form No.15 relating to holidays with wages had not been maintained and not produced when demanded.

3. P.W.1 sent a show cause notice to the respondent, (Ex.P3) along with his inspection report, Ex P2. Ex.P6 is the reply of the accused. Since P.W.1 was not satisfied with the reply of the respondent, he instituted this prosecution on 10-9-1982 before the trial Court. The violations noticed by him were punishable underS.92 of the Act

4. To substantiate the prosecution case, P.W.1 examined himself and marked Exs.Pl to P6. The respondent denied the charge, but did not examine any witness on his side. He did not also mark any document.

5. The trial Court, on a consideration of the evidence adduced before it, found that there was a violation of the mandatory provision ofS.105 of the Factories Act, which would entail the respondent to an acquittal. The trial Court also found that there was a limitation bar for the institution of the prosecution, but there was practically no discussion on this aspect. The learned Magistrate, was also not prepared to place reliance on the evidence of P.W.1 since in page 3 of Ex.P2 the names of the minor children had not been noted, in the proper column, but had been filled up only in page 7 of the report.

6. Mr. T. Munirathina Naidu, appearing for the State, contended that the reasoning of the trial Court is unsustainable. He would produce before me a typed copy of a Government Order dated 27-3-1976 and contend that the Assistant Inspectors of Factories Sivakasi Nos.1 and 2 have been appointed as Inspectors for the purpose of the Factories Act, within the local limits within which such person shall exercise powers. The local limit is seen to include Sattur, Aruppukottai, Srivilliputhur and Rajapalayam taluks of Ramanathapuram district He would also contend that there is no reasoning whatsoever regarding the question of limitation and even on that ground the judgment of the trial Court will be unsustainable. Regarding the third ground of the acquittal by the trial Court he would submit that there was nothing wrong in P.W.1 having entered the names of the minors at page 7 after specifically noting in page 2 of Ex.P2 that the names of the minors had been later entered.

7. Thiru v. Sairam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, would contend that the acquittal by the trial court has to be sustained since P.W.1 has not even deposed in his evidence that he was empowered to prosecute the respondent under the Factories Act, let alone the non-production of the Government order. On the contrary, he has stated in the cross-examination that he had obtained the previous sanction from the Inspector of Factories, which was available on his file. Regarding the second and third grounds of acquittal, Thiru Sairam would submit that they m