R.A.Misra, J. - (1.) The applicant, as also the point raised for decision, in both these revision petitions is the same and I, therefore, propose to dispose of them together.
(2.) On complaints filed by Sri M. Qizilbash, Chief Inspector of Factories, U. P., the applicant Sri Prem Nath Khanna is being prosecuted in two cases separately Under Section 92 of the U. P. Factories' Act, 1948 for The contravention of Rules 102 and 103 of the U. P. Factories' Rules, 1950. The cases proceeded for several hearings and eventually they were fixed for 21-8-1951. On that date the applicant applied in both the cases that since the complainant had not attended the Court on the previous hearings of the cases and he was absent on that date also, the complaints should be dismissed and the applicant should be acquitted in accordance with the provisions of Section 247 Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Magistrate rejected these applications.
(3.) Aggrieved by the order of the Magistrate the applicant filed revision petitions in both the cases before the Sessions Court, which proved unsuccessful. He has, therefore, filed these two revision petitions in this Court.;