1. In these three criminal revision cases and the writ petition, a common question, arises for decision. The facts alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition are not admitted by the respondents. But in the criminal revision cases, evidence was taken and the facts are investigated and found by the trial Magistrate and by the Sessions Court, Srikakulam in revision. It is stated by the learned Counsel appearing in the cases that the decision of the writ petition will be governed by the decision in the criminal revision cases. Therefore, I shall first deal with the criminal revision cases.

2. It is also stated by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the facts in alt the three revision cases are similar. So I shall first consider the Criminal Revision Case No. 234/61 which arises out of S. C. No. 1 of 1959 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Magistrate, Sompeta. The accused, Sreeram Rattayya of Palasa is the occupier of Sri Jayasankara Cashew Manufacturing Co., Palasa. The complaint against him is under S.92 of the Factories Act (63 of 1948) for having failed to construct the cashew - nut breaking shed in accordance with the approved plan