AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
15 paragraphs · 364 wordsHorwill, J.—Pour persons, who were numbered as accused 1 to 4, were charged u/s 60 of the Indian Factories Act as the occupiers of a
factory, and the 5th accused as the manager of that factory, with contravening the provisions of the Act by not fencing in a certain machine. The
Sub-Divisional Magistrate imposed a very inadequate fine of Rs. 10 on the 5th accused and acquitted accused 1 to 4 altogether, on the ground
that he believed their statements that they had left the affairs of the factory in the hands of the 5th accused. The Crown has appealed.
The owners or occupiers of a factory cannot relieve themselves of their responsibilities for seeing that the requirements of the Factories Act are
complied with by appointing a manager : they must also see that the manager carries out his duties. It is only when the manager has acted in
express disobedience of their order and they have done their best to see that the provisions of the Act are complied with, that they can themselves
escape liability. Section 60 makes it clear that both the manager and the occupier are liable. Dr. Chowdry has referred to the proviso to the
definition of ''occupier'', that where the affairs of a factory are entrusted to a managing agent, such agent shall be deemed to be the occupier of the
factory. A manager is not however a managing agent. The ultimate control of this factory was in the hands of accused 1 to 4; and if the
requirements of the Act were not complied with, they were therefore liable to punishment. If, as is represented on their behalf, they are ignorant
persons who trusted to the knowledge and good sense of their manager, that might be a reason for awarding them a smaller punishment than the
manager; but it is no reason for acquitting them.
The acquittal of accused 1 to 4 is therefore set aside. As the sentence on the manager was only a fine of Rs. 10, it would perhaps be unfair to
sentence these accused to anything more. I therefore sentence each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 10.
