The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the special procedure for complaints against the occupier or manager of a factory under Section 42, Sub-section 1 of the Factories Act.

JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal on behalf of the Local Government against an order of the Deputy Magistrate of Howrah dated 28th October 1927, by which he acquitted the accused u/s 245, Criminal P.C., of the offences alleged to have been committed by him u/s 41(a) read with Section 26 and Section 41(h) read with Section 35, Factories Act (Act 12 of 1911, as amended-by Act 5 of 1923).

2. What happened in this case was as follows : On 28th June 1927, the Inspector of Factories, Bengal, inspected the Howrah Jute Mills of which the accused Murray was the Manager and found three persons, named, Jokadia, Varalee and Sukfaria, employed and working in the Drawing Department without having any specified hours fixed for their employment in contravention of Section 26, Factories Act, and further found that though the said three persons had commenced to work at 9-30 a.m. their names had not been entered in the prescribed register at 10-20 in contravention of Section 35 of the Act and Rule 76 thereunder.

3. The accused Murray appeared before the Magistrate on 16th August 1927, and tiled two petitions of complaint u/s 42 of the Act in respect of the aforesaid offences against three other persons named Whitton, Charan Das Chatterjee and Sali Dutt, alleging inter alia that he had always used due diligence to enforce the provisions of the Act, that the offence if committed at all, was committed without his knowledge and consent and that the persons mentioned in his petition of complaint who were under him and whose duty it was to look to the proper and lawful working of their department were directly responsible for any wrongful acts of commission or omission.

4. The Magistrate enquired into the complaint of Mr. Murray. He started two order-sheets, one being numbered 1136 of 1927 and the other 1149 of 1927. The three persons named by Mr. Murray appeared before the Magistrate on 26th August 1927 and pleaded not guilty to both the charges. It is alleged that the Magistrate proceeded to try Mr. Murray and the aforesaid three persons on the two accusations summarily and in one proceeding and that although Mr. Murray was an accused person under trial, the Magistrate allowed him to give evidence on oath.

5. It appears from the Magistrate's judgment that he went into the merits and found that it was Charan Das Chatterjee whose duty it was to keep the register properly and that the manager, Mr. Murray, took all necessary steps to see that the Factories Act and the rules thereunder were not violated. He came to the conclusion that Murray, Whitton and Sali Dutt were not guilty and acquitted them. He found accused Charan Das Chatterjee guilty u/s 41(h), Factories Act, and fined him Rs. 30 and, in default, fifteen days rigorous imprisonment.

6. The contention on behalf of the Local Government is that the joint trial of the several persons involved in the two accusations is contrary to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the procedure adopted by the learned-Magistrate in examining an accused person as a witness in the case is contrary to law and has vitiated the trial.

7. Section 42, Sub-section 1, Factories Act runs as follows:

Where the occupier or manager of a factory is charged with an offence against this Act, he shall be entitled upon complaint duly made by him to have any other persons whom he charges as the actual offender brought before the Court at the time appointed for hearing the charge, and if, after the commission of the offence has been proved, the occupier or the manager of the factory proves to the satisfaction of the Court:

(a) That he has used duo diligence to enforce the execution of this Act, and;

(b) That the said other person committed the offence in question without his knowledge, consent or connivance;

that other person shall be convicted of the offence and shall be liable to the like fine as if he ware the occupier or manager, and the occupier or manager, shall be discharged from any liability under this Act.

8. It is qui