Skip to content


Sanehi Ram Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1919All273; 49Ind.Cas.860
AppellantSanehi Ram
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
factories act (xii of 1911,), section 41(a) - employ, went contrary to provisions of act--offence-proof. - george knox, j.1. i agree with the view taken by the learned sessions judge who has referred this case that no offence under section 41 (a) of act xii of 1911 has been proved there is nothing on the record to show that the boy, whoever he was, who ran away, was employed or allowed to work contrary to any of the provisions of the act. the act being a special act, there must be definite evidence to show that the boy was either employed or being allowed to work. the boy may have been there for any purpose. we all know the nature of boys. he may have stolen in for some purpose quite apart from employment or being allowed to work. i set aside the conviction and sentence and direct that the fine, or any part of it which has been paid, be refunded.
Judgment:

George Knox, J.

1. I agree with the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge who has referred this case that no offence under Section 41 (a) of Act XII of 1911 has been proved There is nothing on the record to show that the boy, whoever he was, who ran away, was employed or allowed to work contrary to any of the provisions of the Act. The Act being a special Act, there must be definite evidence to show that the boy was either employed or being allowed to work. The boy may have been there for any purpose. We all know the nature of boys. He may have stolen in for some purpose quite apart from employment or being allowed to work. I set aside the conviction and sentence and direct that the fine, or any part of it which has been paid, be refunded.


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