The prosecution must prove fundamental facts and establish the elements of the alleged offenses in accordance with the Factories Act and Rules.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. to allow this Appeal and set aside the Judgment of Acquittal of the respondent / accused passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, in C.C.No.154 of 2012 dated 15.05.2013.)

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred challenging the Judgment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode made in C.C.No.154 of 2012, dated 15.05.2013.

2. The state is the appellant herein. The case has been arisen out of a private complaint given by the factory Inspector on the allegations that on 27.02.2012 at about 10.45 p.m when the factory Inspector inspected the premises of the factory of the respondent/accused by name M/s.Hari Textile Finishers, it was found that there were certain violations and hence the respondent was charged for the offences under Sections 6(1) (a)(aa)(b)(c), Rule 3(1)(2) & 6(1)(t), Rule 4 (1)(2)(3) of the Factory Act 1948 (Amended Act, 1987) and Tamil Nadu Factory Ruels, 1950.

3. As per the case of the complainant, the accused was using the machine power with electricity connection with the tune of 45 H.P. Machine power by employing 6 male labourers and 5 female labourers. As per Section 6(1)(d) of the Factories Act r/w Section 4 (1) (2) (3) of the Factories Rules, if more than 10 workers were employed, the required licence should be taken. But the respondent has not obtained due licence in accordance with the said Rules. If the factory runs by using machine power with 45 H.P., the machineries ought to have been submitted to get due approval in accordance with the Factories Act. In view of the above said violations, the private complaint has been filed. After the complaint was taken cognizence, the trial has been conducted.

4. During the course of trial, on the side of the appellant / prosecution, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P4 were marked. On the side of the respondent / accused, the respondent himself has examined as DW1 and Exs.D1 and D2 were marked.

5. After conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge acquitted that accused. Aggrieved over the same, the prosecution has preferred this appeal.

6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the appellant submitted that the learned trial Judge had omitted to take into all the facts that the accused was using 45 H.P. machine power with electricity connection without getting due approval. Despite one factory is run by the respondent, it has been shown as though two factories were run and the same was not properly appreciated. The Inspector of Factories and the Deputy Inspector of Factories who were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2, had deposed evidence and produced materials to show that the accused had committed the above offence. Since the learned trial Judge did not consider the materials in a proper perspective, the Judgment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode is liable to be set aside and the accused should be found guilty.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent/accused submitted that the respondent has sent a due reply and that was not filed as a document along with the complaint. Six Male members and five female members were not working in the same factory and they are working in two different establishments situated adjacent to each other and hence that will not come under the purview of the Rules to get licence for the same. Neither P.W.1 nor P.W.2 have stated in their evidence about the electricity connection through which the alleged machine power was used by the accused by utilizing 45H.P motor. Even the prosecution witnesses themselves have stated that they had issued notice only after 12 days of inspection and the signature of all the persons who were working at the relevant point of time were not obtained. In fact, the respondent was conducting two cottage industries in Door Nos.13 and 15 by two names viz., M/s.Hari Textile Finishers and Sri vela Centering Mills. Since the number of employees employed in the factory are below 10, there