1. This is an appeal on behalf of the State against the order of acquittal passed in favour of the respondents by the learned Civil and Sessions Judge of Allahabad for the offence of breach of Section 61 of the Factories Act 1948 read with Rule 77 of the U. P. Factories Rules of 1950.
2. The facts of the case are in a very narrow compass. On 10-8-1956 Sri A. N. Misra, Inspector of Factories. U. P. visited Tirathraj Press which is situate at 93 Chowk, Allahabad, of which Sri D. N. Bhargava was the occupier and Mujib Ullah, the other respondent, manager. When Sri A. N. Misra inspected the factory he found that neither the notice of period of work according to which workers were required and allowed to work in the factory was displayed anywhere in the factory nor a copy of the same had been submitted to the Chief Inspector of Factories U. P. He accordingly made a note of it in his inspection book. A complaint was, accordingly, filed by the Chief Inspector of Factories, Sri G. D. Bishnoi, on the 1st of November 1956, charging both the respondents for breach of Section 61 of the Factories Act read with Rule 77 of the Factories Rules.
3. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. The Manager Mujid Ullah stated that the notice was displayed on the table of Sri D. N. Bhargava and a copy of it was sent to the Chief Inspector of Factories on 10-8-1956 under a registered cover. Sri D. N. Bhargava also stated that the notice was displayed at his table and a copy of the same had been sent to the Chief Inspector of Factories.
4. The trial court, accepting the prosecution version of the case and rejecting the defence, convicted both the respondents under Section 92 of the Factories Act and sentenced each one of them to a fine of rupees seventy-five. The accused, aggrieved with the order and sentenced passed upon them, went! up in appeal to the Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge being of the opinion that the complaint filed by the Chief Inspector of Factories was not legally competent, allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and the sentence passed upon the respondents. While allowing the appeal he recorded a finding of fact that the requisite notice was not displaced at a prominent place as required by law.
5. Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge the State has come up in appeal to this Court.
6. In our opinion the view taken by the lower appellate court was incorrect. If we refer to Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Factories Act we will find a provision according to which
'The State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, appoint any person to be a Chief Inspector who shall in addition to the powers conferred on a Chief Inspector under this Act exercise the powers of an Inspector throughout the State.'
It is thus clear that the Chief Inspector of Factories in U. P., in addition to his own powers, exercises the powers of an Inspector throughout the State. No restriction has been placed upon his powers. The only other relevant section to which reference may be made is Section 105 of the Factories Act, which runs as follows:
''No court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act except on complaint by, or with the previous sanction in writing of an Inspector.'
It will be noticed that the words used are 'complaint by an Inspector'. Keeping in mind the provisions of Sub-section 2 of Section 8 that a Chief Inspector, for the purposes of the Factories Act, is an Inspector and can exercise the powers of an Inspector throughout the State, he was, in our opinion, fully competent to lodge the complaint and the complaint filed by him will be a complaint filed by 'an Inspector' and the Court can legally take cognizance of an offence on the basis of the same.
7. The learned Sessions Judge in taking the view that a complaint by a Chief Inspector was not legally competent was influenced by a decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. P. Sen, reported in AIR 1949 Cal 604. In our opinion that decision did not apply to the facts of the present case. That case was under the Factories Act of 1934. A material change has been made in Section 105 of the present Act which was equivalent to Section 74(1) of the Factories Act of 1934. In Section 74(1) of the Act of 1934 the words were 'the Inspector'. Therefore 'the Inspector' naturally meant 'the Inspector who had discovered the breach committed under the Act'. The old Section 74 which is equivalent to Section 105 in the present Act has undergone a change and the legislature has put in the word ''an' instead of the word 'the' which enables any Inspector to file a complaint. We are fortified in our opinion by the decision of this Court in the case of Thakur Chand Dwadeshreni v. State, reported in : (1959)ILLJ233All in which it was held that the provisions in the Factories Act make it clear that a complaint can be filed by the Chief Inspector also and the complaint filed by him will be a complaint filed by an Inspector and the Court can take cognizance of the offence on the basis of that complaint. We agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid case.
8. In our opinion the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge was legally untenable and the order passed by him could not be maintained.
9. We accordingly allow this appeal and setaside the order passed by the learned Sessions Judgeof Allahabad dated 13-9-1957 and restore that ofthe Judicial Magistrate I, Allahabad dated 6-4-1957.