SUPERINTENDENT AND REMEMBRANCER OF LEGAL AFFAIRS Vs. LNBIRLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Local Government has appealed against the discharge of L.N. Birla in a ease under Secs.60 (a)(iii), 32(a) and 24(1)(c), Factories Act, 1934, and Rule 46 of the Bengal Factories Rules, 1935. In the connected proceeding, Revision No. 599 of 1939, a Rule has been issued at the in. stance of the Local Government calling upon B.K. Rana to show cause why the order of conviction and sentence passed upon him under the same Secs.of the Factories Act and the Factories Rules should not be set aside and such further or other order be made as to this Court may seem fit and proper. These cases are two out of six cases instituted by the Local Government against L.N. Birla for various alleged contraventions of the Factories Act and the rules made there under. The Keshoram Cotton Mills Ltd, is the occupier of the factory and L.N. Birla is admittedly one of the directors of that company. Proceedings have been instituted against Birla as the person responsible for the alleged offences, and Birla has in each case before us complained against Rana as the "actual offender" and has claimed discharge from liability under the provisions of Section 71 of the Act. The Local Government contend that the procedure adopted by the trying Magistrate was irregular and that the conviction of Rana and the acquittal of Birla was in each case without jurisdiction and illegal. We have called for the records in all the connected cases and we are satisfied that the learned Magistrate adopted the same procedure at each trial.

(2.) The proceedings arose out of an inspection by Mr. R.C. Parsons, Inspector of Factories, Bengal, of the Keshoram Cotton Mills on 1 and 3 August 1938 when he found that various provisions of the Factories Act had been contravened. In the appeal before us the contravention related to inadequate fencing of the mill machinery. Under Section 60 of the Act the "manager and occupier shall each be punishable for such contravention." Mr. Wright, who was the manager at the time of the inspection, had already left. Section 70(2) of the Act provides that Where the occupier of a factory is a company, any one of the directors thereof...may be prosecuted and punished...for any offence for which the occupier of the factory is punishable.

(3.) The company had not given notice as permitted by the proviso to Section 70(2) nominating a director to be "the occupier," and Birla was therefore prima facie punishable as one of the directors. Section 71(1), Factories Act, provides: Where the occupier or manager of a factory is charged with an offence against this Act, he shall be entitled upon complaint duly made by him to have any other person whom he charges as the actual offender brought before the Court at the time appointed for hearing the charge ; and if, after the commission of the offence has been proved, the occupier or manager of the factory proves to the satisfaction of the Court (a) that he has used due diligence to enforce the execution of this Act, and that the said other person committed the offence in question without his knowledge, consent or connivance, that other person shall be convicted of the offence and shall be liable to the like fine as if he were the occupier or manager, and the occupier or manager shall be discharged from any liability under this Act.