Skip to content


Madanlal Haweliwala and anr. Vs. State - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Ref. No. 10 of 1953
Judge
Reported inAIR1954All27
ActsFactories Act, 1948 - Sections 92 and 106; Factories Rules, 1950 - Rule 130
AppellantMadanlal Haweliwala and anr.
RespondentState
Appellant AdvocateB.N. Khanna, ;G.K. Khanna and ;Umashankar Srivastava, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateAddl. Govt. Adv.
Excerpt:
.....106 and 92 of factories act, 1948 - breach of rule 130(b) committed within jurisdiction of sub divisional magistrate - chief inspector of factories sent complaint to city magistrate - magistrate taking cognizance after three months - conviction passed by magistrate held bad and set aside. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board...........recommending that the order of the sub-divisional magistrate, nanpara, convicting and sentencing madan lal haweliwala & another to pay a fine of rs. 50/-under section 92 of the factories act of 1948 be set aside.2. the facts of this case are simple. sri madan lal haweliwala is the proprietor and occupier of janki rice mills rupaidiha and sarju prasad is his son and manager of the mill. an inspector of factories inspected the mill on 10-7-1950 & found that a certain register required to be maintained under the factories rules could not be produced. this involved a breach of rule 130(b) of the factories rules of 1935. the chief inspector of factories sent a complaint bearing date 7-10-1950 against the owner and manager of the factory to the city magistrate of bahraich. this complaint.....
Judgment:
ORDER

R. Singh, J.

1. This is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge of Bahraich recommending that the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nanpara, convicting and sentencing Madan Lal Haweliwala & another to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-under Section 92 of the Factories Act of 1948 be set aside.

2. The facts of this case are simple. Sri Madan Lal Haweliwala is the proprietor and occupier of Janki Rice Mills Rupaidiha and Sarju Prasad is his son and manager of the mill. An inspector of Factories inspected the mill on 10-7-1950 & found that a certain register required to be maintained under the Factories Rules could not be produced. This involved a breach of Rule 130(b) of the Factories Rules of 1935. The Chief Inspector of factories sent a complaint bearing date 7-10-1950 against the owner and manager of the factory to the City Magistrate of Bahraich. This complaint seems to have reached the City Magistrate on 10-10-1950, and the City Magistrate passed an order for the first time on 12-10-1950. The file was sent on 8-12-1950, to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nanpara, for disposal as the place where the offence is said to have been committed lay within, the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nanpara, and not of the City Magistrate. The case was ultimately tried, it appears, by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nanpara, who convicted Madan Lal Haweliwala and the other accused as mentioned above. An application for revision was then filed by Madan Lal Haweliwala to the Sessions Judge who has made the recommendation which is before me.

3. It is not disputed that the place where the offence is said to have been committed lay within the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nanpara. It was he, therefore, who was empowered to take cognizance of the offence. A complaint could also have been filed to the District Magistrate. In the present case, however, no complaint was made either to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nanpara, or to the District Magistrate, but one was sent to the city Magistrate who had evidently no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in respect of the offence committed within the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Nanpara. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nanpara, took cognizance of the case after 11-12-1950, that is more than three months after the offence had been committed. It is provided in Section 106 of the Factories Act that cognizance of an offence committed in connection with the Factories Act or Rules could be taken only within three months of the date of the offence. In the present case no complaint was in fact made to the proper person, within three months of the date of the offence and no cognizance of the offence was taken by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nanpara, within three months. The conviction of Madam Lal Haweliwala and Sarju Prasad by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nanpara, was therefore bad and should be set aside.

4. The reference made by the Sessions Judge is therefore accepted. The order of conviction and sentence of fine passed upon. Madan Lal Haweliwala and Sarju Prasad under Section 92 of the Factories Act. 1948. are therefore set aside. They are acquitted. The fine, if paid, shall be refunded to them.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //