- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated June 16,1978, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chittorgarh, by Which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused-respondents.
(2.) THE incident, for which the respondents No. l to 3 were tried, took place on December 1. 1975, when Nageshwar, who was a labourer working in the factory of Birla Cement Works, Chittorgarh, met with an accident and his right hand was cut. THE case of the prosecution is that there were no fencing to the Crusher Belt No. 10 where Nageshwar was working at time, As there was no fancing, there, Nageshwar lost his right had. Respondents No. 1 to 3, being the Manager and Incharge of the Birla Cement Factory, Chittorgarh, were tried by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate under sections 21 and 92 of the Factory Act. THE prosecution, in support of its case, produced three witnesses. PW 1 Hari Shanker, PW2 Banke Lal Agrawal, and PW3 Nageshwar (the injured himself ). THE accused examined DW 1 Laxman Chand Mitter and DW 2 V. K. Srivastava in their defence. After considering the evidence on record, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that there was a fancing provided by the company over Crusher Belt No. 10, which was broken by some-one on the same very day and there was a small hole in which the hand can go, otherwise there was complete fancing THE learned trial Court, therefore, held that the accused-respondents have not, in any way, contravened the provisions of Section 21 of the Factory Act and, therefore, all the three respondents - accused were acquitted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. It is against this order that the state of Rajasthan preferred a Leave to Appeal. THE leave to Appeal was granted and the same was treated as an appeal. I have heard the learned Public prosecutor as well as the counsel for the respondents. A perusal of the- statements of PW1 Hari Shanker, PW 2 Banke Lal and PW3 Nageshwar, clearly shows that at the relevant time, the Crusher Belt No. 10 was properly faced and it was not on account of any non-observation provided to the Crusher Belt No. 10 that the complainant Nageshwar met with an accident. It appears that the accident took place on account of some negligence on the part of the injured Nageshwar himself. The appreciation of the evidence made by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be, in any way, unjust or improper. The learned lower Court has properly considered the evidence on record and arrived at a just conclusion. After going through the evidence, I am of the view that the Crusher Belt No. 10 was properly fanced. In this view of the matter, I do not find any force in the appeal filed by the state of Rajasthan. However, at this stage, I may mention that M/s. Birla Cement Factory, where Nageshwar was working, as a labourer and lost his right hand in the accident, has given Rs. 20,000/- to Nageshwar on compassionate ground. In this view of the matter, the appeal, filed by the state of Rajasthan, has got no force and is hereby dismissed. . ;