1. There were not really six offences committed by the petitioner in these cases. At the most it seems to me there were two offences committed which were: (1) employing four persons on a Sunday without giving notice to the Inspector and without fixing a notice in the place mentioned in Section 36 of the Indian Factories Act. This is an offence under Section 41(a) read with Section 21(1)(6) of the Indian Factories Act; it is not, I think four separate offences, (2) employing one person, the head foreman, outside the specified hours on a Sunday. This is an offence under Section 41(a) read with Section 26 of the Act. There is no such offence as that for which the accused has been convicted in C.C. No. 142 of 1933. Mere failure to put up notice of Sunday work is not an offence. The act which is prohibited in Section 22 consists in employing persons on Sunday without (a) giving them a compensation holiday, and (b) giving notice to the Inspector and putting up a notice in the place mentioned in Section 36. A manager may be convicted under Section 41(a) read with this section if he employs any person on a Sunday without fulfilling all these conditions. If he violates even one of the conditions, the offence is complete but if he violates all three, the offence is still only one offence. Therefore the conviction and sentence in C.C. No. 142 of 1933 cannot stand. I set them aside and order the fine, if collected, to be refunded.
2. I see no reason to differ from the learned Joint Magistrate's finding that the accused did not succeed in shifting his responsibility under Section 42(I) of the Act. But as I hold that the employment of the four persons mentioned in C.C. Nos. 143 to 146 of 1933 constituted one offence only and not four offences, I shall confirm the conviction and sentence in C.C. No. 143 of 1933 alone, and set aside the convictions and sentences in C.C. Nos. 144, 145 and 146 of 1933. The fines in these cases, if collected, will be refunded.
3. The conviction in C.C. No. 147 of 1933 is correct and the sentence is not excessive. I decline to interfere in revision in that case.