Kanta Bhatnagar, J.
1. The respondents were tried for the offence under Section 6 of the Indian Boilers Act, 1923 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') by the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh. By the judgment dated December 31, 1976 they were acquitted of the charge. The State of Rajasthan felt aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal and filed this appeal against the judgment after obtaining leave to appeal under Section 378(iii) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are as under:- On February 7, 1971 Boilor Inspector inspected Birla Cement Works at Chittorgarh. He found one unregistered Loco Boiler working there which amounted the contravention of sec 6 of the Act. Complaint to that effect was filed in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate which on transfer reached the Court of the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh. The learned Magistrate road ever the substance of the acquisition to the respondent. They denied the allegations. Prosecution examined two witnesses viz. B.L. Agarwal (P.W. 1) and P D. Dandiya (P.W. 2) the then Senior Inspector of Factories and Boilers, Jaipur. The respondents denied the allegations of working with an unregistered Loco Boiler. Sriniwas Kothari (D.W. 1), an Engineer employed in the Cement Factor), and Ram Deo (D.W. 2) Loco Bioler of the concerned Cement Factory were examined as defence witnesses. The learned Magistrate believed the defence version that Boiler required atleast 90-100 pound pressure for its working while at the relevant time the Boiler was working at 25 pound pressure only for the purpose of testing.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor strenously contended that there was no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the Inspector Working at the Boiler. According to him defence could not establish that more than 25 pounds pressure was required for the actual working of the Boiler.
4. The careful examination of the statement of the two prosecution witnesses show that both of them were not specific about the pressure required for the actual use of the Boiler. This is the admitted position that at the relevant time the Boiler was working at 25 pound pressure only. Inspector B.L. Agarwal (P.W. 1) has admitted his inability to tell as to what pressure is required for the Boiler for actual working. He could only tell *hat Boiler is used for the working of the Loco Engine. He also expressed his ignorance on the point that 120 P.S.I. pressure was required for the working of the Loco Engine. Though he had denied the suggestion that the Boiler was being used at the time of testing but he admitted that he could not say for what purpose it was being used at the time. Similar is the statement of the Senior Inspector, P.D. Dandiya (P.W. 2). He has of course admitted that Loco Engine was not working at that time. It is pertinent to note that both these witnesses have denied to have any knowledge about the provisional order No. 3/70 dated May 13, 1970 having been issued for this Boiler. It is also relevant to note that Ramdeo, the man working at the Boiler was not interrogated at that time to tell as to for what purpose the Boiler was on. On the other hand Sriniwas Kothari (D.W. 1) has clearly stated that it is permissible to put the Boiler for Hydrolic lest prior to obtaining the registration certificate. According to Ramdeo, 25 pound pressure is called Hydrolic pressure and at the time of inspection, the concerned Boiler was not made to work, rather was having only 25 pound pressure. In view of this discussion, it is evident that prosecution could not establish that the Boiler in question was used for generating team for the Loco Engine at the relevant time so as to bring the case within the ambit of Section 6 of the Act.
5. In such circumstances, the acquittal of the respondents for the aforesaid offence called for no interference.
6. Consequently, the appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan is dismissed.