Bachawat, J. - (1.) M/s. Golden Tabacco Co. Private Ltd., have their head office and main factory at Bombay where they manufacture cigarettes. The appellant is the occupier-cum-manager of the company's premises at Eluru in Andhra Pradesh where sun-cured country tabacco purchased from the local producers is collected, processed and stored and then transported to the company's factory at Bombay. The prosecution case is that the aforesaid premises are a factory. The appellant was prosecuted and tried for contravention of Section 6 (1) of the Factories Act 1946 and Rules 3 and 5 (3) of the Andhra Pradesh Factory Rules 1950 for operating the factory without obtaining a licence from the Chief Inspector of Factories and his previous permission approving the plans of the building. The appellant's defence was that the premises did not constitute a factory and it was not necessary for him to obtain the licence or permission. The 2nd Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Eluru, accepted the defence contention and acquitted the appellant. According to the Magistrate the prosecution failed to establish that the premises were a factory or that any manufacturing process was carried on or that any worker was working therein. The Public Prosecutor filed an appeal against the order. The Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed the appeal, convicted the appellant under Section 92 for contravention of S. 6 (1) and rules 3 and 5 (3) and sentenced him to pay a find of Rs. 50 under each count. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant after obtaining special leave.
(2.) The question in this appeal is whether the company's premises at Eluru constitute a factory. Section 2 (m) defines factory. Under Section 2 (m) factory means any premises including the precincts thereof "whereon twenty or more workers are working, or were working on any day of the preceding twelve months, and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on with the aid of power, or is ordinarily so carried on." It is not disputed that more than 20 persons were working on the premises. The points in issue are: (1) whether those persons were "workers"; and (2) whether any manufacturing process was being carried on therein.
(3.) For the purpose of proving the prosecution case the respondent relied upon the following materials; (1) the testimony of PW 1A, Subbarao the Assistant Inspector of Factories; (2) his report of inspection of the premises on December 20, 1965, (Ex. P1); (3) the show cause notice Ex. P3, and the appellant's reply dated January 15, 1966; (Ex. P5); (4) the testimony of PW 2, B. P. Chandrareddi, the Provident Fund Inspector; and (5) six returns (Exs. P7 to P12) submitted by the Eluru establishment, to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.;