G.P.MATHNR, J. - (1.) THE controversy involved in these four petitions is identical and therefore they are being disposed of by a common order. Criminal Misc. Application No. 1856 of 1983 shall be treated as the leading case. When the petition was filed, the State was given time to file counter-affidavit on 8-3-1983 but as no counter-affidavit was filed, the petition was admitted on 24-8-1983. Even after twelve years when the petition was taken up for hearing on 27-3-1996 there was no counter-affidavit on the record of the case.
(2.) THE Deputy Chief Factory Inspector (Chemical) UP filed a criminal complaint against the applicant in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur on 2-3-1982 which was registered as Criminal Case No. 922 of 1982. The main allegation in the complaint is that the walls of the factory had not been white-washed and the toilet and urinal near the weaving section had not been cleaned. The applicants had thus contravened the provisions of Factories Act and were liable to be prosecuted under Section 92 thereof. Criminal Misc. Application No. 1857 of 1983 has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 3085 of 1982 under Sec­tion 92 of Factories Act. In this case the complaint was filed on the allegation that the Safety Guard had not been attached to the belts and pullies of the Willooing Machine and the pit near the generator had not been covered. Criminal Misc. Application No. 1858 of 1983 has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 116 of 1982. The complaint has been filed for prosecuting the applicant under Section 92 of the Factories Act on the ground that the Form No. 5 regard­ing the inspection done for measuring the pressure of Beam Dying Machines were not made available to the Deputy Chief Factories Inspector at the time of the inspection on 2-12-1981. Similarly the accounts books of the canteen were not made available to him. Criminal Misc. Application No. 1859/1983 has been filed for quashing the proceedings of Case No. 921 of 1982. In this case the complaint was filed on the ground that the dry bulb and wet bulb temperature chart of hygrometers wore not available at time of the inspection.
(3.) THE applicant moved an application before the learned Magistrate in all the four cases stating that the Factories Inspector who had inspected the Factory and had filed the complaint had no authority to do so and the prosecution of the applicant is, therefore, illegal. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Kanpur passed an exactly similar order on 22-2-1983 in all the cases which reads as under- "The case is still at the stage of evidence. The points raised by the applicants will be considered after the close of evidence." ;