Kanta Bhatnagar, J. - (1.) UPON a complaint filed by the Inspector Factories at Bhilwara, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara tried the petitioners for the offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 (hereinafter to, be referred as the 'Act') and by the judgment dated August 2, 1976 held them guilty and sentenced them each to a fine of Rs. 200/ - (two hundred only) in default to undergo 20 days SI. Being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioners preferred an appeal in the Court of Sessions Judge, Bhilwara. The appeal was transferred to the Court of the Addl. Sessions Judge. Bhilwara. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhilwara by the judgment dated March 22, 1978 rejected the appeal.
(2.) IT is in dissatisfaction with the aforesaid orders that the petitioners have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Briefly stated, the facts of the case giving rise to the trial of the petitioners, the appeal preferred by them and the present revision petition are as under: - The petitioners are said to be carrying on business in the name and style of Messers Munshi Painting Works at Bus Stand, Bhilwara. On January 16, 1974 G.S. Kandoi (PW. 1), the Factory Inspector at Bhilwara, checked the workshop of the petitioners. Petitioner no. 1 Peer Bux was present there at the time and the 13 workers, with the help of electric motor of 8 HP were doing the painting and connected works on the Bus No. RJE 1331. The number of the workers exceeding ten in number, the workshop fell within the definition of a 'Factory' as provided in Section 2(m) of the Factories Act. Such a factory is required to be registered and the certificate to be obtained under the Factories Act. The petitioners failed to comply with the provisions of the Act. Thus it was considered to be non -compliance of Section 6 and 7 of the Act punishable under Section 92 of the Act. The Inspector, therefore, filed a complaint in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara against the petitioners. Petitioners were summoned. The learned Magistrate tried them far the aforesaid offence. Inspector G.S. Kandoi (PW. 1) appeared in the witness box to substantiate the allegations leveled against the petitioners. Both the petitioners denied the allegations levelled against them in their statements. Petitioner Peer Bux appeared in the witness box and stated on oath that, only seven workers were employee by him and the four were brought by the owner of the bus from the workshop of Kishan Lal to fix the glass panes on the bus and one was the conductor of the bus. Kishanlal was examined as DW 2 to substantiate the contention of the petitioner Peer Bux. The learned Judge did not consider the plea taken by the petitioner Peer Bux believable and held the petitioners guilty for the offence under Section 92 of the Act and sentenced them as stated above. The appeal also failed, hence this revision petition in this Court.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioners has assailed the findings of the learned courts below on a number of grounds. It has been strenuously contended by the learned Counsel that the defence version being consistent throughout and plausible should have been relied upon by the learned trial Judge. According to him Kishanlal (DW. 2) has clearly stated that he had sent four workers to work at the bus for fitting the windows etc. and as such there was no reason to disbelieve him.;