B. D. MUKERJI, J. :- These two appeals by the State arise out of more or less the same facts and consequently we propose to dispose of both these appeals by this common judgment.

2. In Appeal No. 540 there is only one respondent, namely, Sri Krishna Prasad Dar, Manager Allahabad Law Journal Co. who has figured in both the cases. In appeal No. 541 of 1951 there are two respondents, namely, Rameshwar Prasad Bajoria, resident of 9 Dalhousie Square Calcutta, who is said to be the occupier of Allahabad Law journal Co. Ltd. and Sri Krishna Prasad Dar, Manager of the Allahabad Law Journal Co. Ltd.

3. The facts which have given rise to these two Government Appeals lie within a very narrow compass and they may be stated as follows : On 25-6-1950, which was a Sunday, Mr. M.L. Bhagat, Inspector of Factories, paid a visit to the Allahabad Law Journal Co. Ltd. and discovered eleven persons working in the outer portion of the factory building in a verandah. He found that the Chaukidar or the Darwan, as he was called, was also present at the time. The Inspector found the main factory premises locked and he also found that the persons who were working at that time were busy binding certain books. It is pointed out, however, that these men were not using any "power" or machinery of the factory, which was at that time locked away from all accessibility of these persons. He called for the "Register of Factory Workers" as also the "Inspection Book". These, however, could not be produced because neither the Manager, nor anybody responsible for running the Press, was present at the time.

4. The Inspector of Factories made a report in regard to this matter and as a consequence of his report, two complaints were filed against Sri Krishna Prasad Dar and one complaint against Rameshwar Prasad Bajoria. In one of the complaints - the complaint which has given rise to Appeal No. 541 of 1951 - the charge was for the breach of S. 52, Factories Act, 1948, namely, Act 53 of 1948. In the other complaint, which has given rise to Appeal No. 540 of 1951 there was a complaint for a breach of S. 62, Factories Act, read with R. 97 of the Act.

5. Section 52, Factories Act, is in these words :

"52 (1) No adult worker shall be required or allowed to work in a factory on the first day of the week (hereinafter referred to as the said day), unless :

(a) he has or will have a holiday for a whole day on one of the three days immediately before or after the said day, and

(b) the manager of the factory has, before the said day or the substituted day under cl. (a), whichever is earlier,

(i) delivered a notice at the office of the Inspector of his intention to require the worker to work on the said day and of the day which is to be substituted, and

(ii) displayed a notice to that effect in the factory : Provided that no substitution shall be made which will result in any worker working for more than ten days consecutively without a holiday for a whole day.........."

It is not necessary to quote the other portions of this section.

6. It appears from this section that a worker cannot be permitted or asked to work on a Sunday unless arrangement has been made to give him a holiday in substitution of the Sunday on which he is made to work; the Section further requires that previous notice of this desire of the factory to employ a particular worker on a Sunday and substituting the Sunday by another off-day has to be communicated to the Inspector of Factories before he is made to work. The prohibition contained in the section, however, applies to a worker in a factory. "Worker" has been defined in S. 2(1) of the Act as follows :

"(1) worker means a person employed, directly or through any agency, whether for wages or not, in any manufacturing process, or in cleaning any part of the machinery or premises used for a manufacturing process, or in any other kind of work incidental to, or connected with, the manufacturing process, or the subject of the manufacturing process."

From the definiti