D.N.Roy, J. - (1.) These two appeals by the State arise out of more or less the same facts and consequently we propose to dispose of both of them by this common judgment.
(2.) The facts which have given rise to these two appeals lie within a very narrow compass and they may be stated as follows : On 10-4-1954, Mr. P. C. Joshi, Inspector of Factories, paid a visit to certain premises held by Mohammad Sattar a resident of Ganeshganj within police circle Kotwali in District Mirzapur and discovered that 140 persons were preparing Bidis in those premises. They were not using any power or machinery for the preparation of bidis as was borne out by Mohammed Ibrahim, a witness produced on behalf of the prosecution. Those persons used to take the leaves to their homes and prepare them in the form of containers which they filled up with tobacco on the respondent's premises for which they were paid at the rate of Rs. 1/9/- per thousand.
(3.) The State contended at the trial that this was a "Factory" and the persons aforesaid were "workers" and that since there was a breach of Rule 3 of the U. P. Factories Rules in that Mohammad Sattar did not submit an application in the prescribed form to obtain previous permission in writing either from the State Government or the Chief Inspector of Factories for using the premises as Factory and that as manufacturing process was going on with more than twenty workers, Mohammad Sattar was liable for the breach of that Rule under the Factories Act. In the other case the State contended that Mohammad Sattar contravened Rule 6/13 of the U. P. Factories Rules in that no application for the grant of licence along with the notice of occupation in the prescribed form was submitted to the Chief Inspector of Factories and manufacturing process was found being carried on without the aid of power by more than twenty workers.;