1. This is a revision application against an order of the First Class Magistrate, Kopergaon, convicting the applicant under Section 41 (f) of the Indian Factories Act XII of 1911, as amended up to date, and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 20. The applicant is the manager of a concern called Gurhal-Ghar in which jaggery is manufactured from sugar-cane. There is an engine in a separate walled room and outside it are machines called crushers for extraction of juice from sugar-cane and the juice is then pumped through pipes to a shed in which it is stored in pans for boiling. All these buildings are in the same compound surrounded by a fence. Three men were employed on the engine, fourteen on the crushers and thirty-seven worked in the shed where the pans are. The building has been registered under the Indian Factories Act and the prosecution arose owing to a complaint from the Assistant Factory Inspector, who on visiting the premises found that the engine was not properly fenced.
2. The main contention put forward by Mr. Kane who appears for the applicant is that this Gurhal-Ghar is not a factory as defined in the Indian Factories Act, and that, therefore, Section 18 which relates to the fencing of machinery does not apply to it. ' Factory' is defined as follows in Section 2:-
(3) 'factory' means- (a) any premises wherein, or within the precincts of which, on any one day in the year not less than twenty persona are simultaneously employed and steam, water or other mechanical power or electrical power is used in aid of any manufacturing process.
3. It is now argued that as only three persons were employed on the engine and fourteen on the crushers and the remaining thirty-seven in the shed in which the pans are, and as the engine shed and the latter shed are separate buildings, there were not as many as twenty persona simultaneously employed on the premises or within the precincts within the meaning of this definition.
4. The word ' premises' is defined in Murray's Oxford Dictionary as ' A house or building with its grounds or other appurtenances '. According to the ordinary use of this expression when speaking of a concern like a factory ' premises ' will include all the buildings of the factory together with the compound in which they stand. ' Precinct' is defined in the same Dictionary as ' The space enclosed by the walls or other boundaries of a particular place or building ' and ' moro vaguely, the region lying immediately around a place, without distinct reference to any enclosure, the environs'. It appears to us to be perfectly clear that according to the ordinary use of language all these persons, those employed on the engine, those employed on the crushers and those employed in the boiling shed, must be said to be employed both 'on the premises ' and ' within the precincts' thereof, and, if any authority in support of that proposition be required, it will be found in the case of Ramanatham v. King-Emperor ILR (1926) Mad. 834.
5. A further point raised was that the manufacturing process in this case does not begin until the juice reaches the pans, and that the crushing of the sugar-cane for which the engine is required is not part of the manufacturing process. It appears to us that there is no substance in this contention. It is to be noted that the purpose for which the persons on the premises are employed is not material. All that the definition requires is that a number of persons not less than twenty shall be simultaneously employed in the premises or within the precincts, and that mechanical power is used in aid of any manufacturing process. It appears to us to be absurd to say that the engine in this case is not used in aid of the process of manufacturing the jaggery.
6. Finally a point was raised that Section 48 of the Act provides that no prosecution under Section 41 shall be instituted except by or with the previous sanction of the Inspector, which is not shown to have been obtained in this case. This point was not taken at the trial nor has it been raised in the revision application made to this Court. We cannot be sure therefore that we have all the materials before us necessary for the consideration of this point. But we have been referred to a Government Resolution of April 1, 1294, by which the Inspectors and Assistant Inspectors of Factories have been appointed to be Inspectors of Factories within the whole of the Bombay Presidency. The complaint in this case was made by an Assistant Inspector. There seems to be no reason therefore to suppose that there is any substance in this point either.
7. In our opinion there is no ground for this Court to interfere in revision. The application is dismissed and the rule discharged.
8. I agree