Harries, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal on behalf of the Provincial Government from an order made by a learned Magistrate of the first class, Howrah, acquitting the respondents upon a charge Under Section 60(a)(iii), Factories Act.
(2.) RESPONDENT 1. P. Sen, wa3 the occupier and respondent 2, A. T, Sen, was the manager of a registered factory (regigfcered No. 316) styled Sen & Co., situated at No. 3 Kuchil Sarkar Lane, Howrah. On 16th September 1947, Sri S. K, Sinha, Inspector of Factories, inspected this factory and found moving parts of the machinery not securely fenced or guarded as required by Section 24(i)(c), Factories Act, read with n, 24(1), Bengal Factories Rules. In particular the back and change gears of lathes, toothed gears of the boring mills, oblique belts driving the blowers, and Emery wheel were not securely fenced. On 9th February 1948, the Inspector, Sri S. E. Sinha, himself filed a complaint in the Court of the District Magistrate, Howrah, against both respondents Under Section 60(a)(iii) read with Section 32 (a) and Section 24 (1)(c), Factories Act (Act XXV [25] of 1934), complaining of the contraventions of the provisions of the Factories Act and the Rules framed thereunder. The respondents were summoned to appear and were in due course tried by a learned Magistrate.
(3.) AT the trial the prosecution examined three witnesses the main witness being the Inspector, Sri S. E. Sinha, He gave an account of his inspection of the factory and stated that certain machinery, details of which I have already given, were not securely fenced and were dangerous, He pointed out that by reason of the absence of fencing of this machinery the clothing of workmen might be caught up in the machinery which might result in very serious consequences. He stated that he had reported the matter to his superior, the chief Inspector, who had sanctioned a prosecution in this case.;