Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: THE STATE VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD AYUB KHANHonorable Justice SHAH ZAMAN BABAR,Malik Muhammad Jaffar,S. M. Bashir
1969 P Cr
1969 P Cr. L J 836
[Lahore]
Before Bashiruddin Ahmad and Shah Zaman Babar, JJ
THE STATE‑Appellant
Versus
MUHAMMAD AYUB KHAN‑Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 327 of 1964, decided on 9th January 1969.
Bahawalpur Cotton Control Act, 1949, Ss. 2(f) & 16(1) read with S. 9(1) and Bahawalpur Cotton Control Rules, r. 8-‑Installa tion of even one roller machine for purposes of Cotton ginning with out licence‑Held, covered by definition of cotton ginning factory" and punishable under S. 16(1)-‑Working of such factory punishable under S. 9 (1) and r. 8‑Order of acquittal of accused passed by trial Court sot aside.
S. M. Bashir, A. A.‑G. for the State.
Malik Muhammad Jaffar for Respondent.
JUDGMENT
SHAH ZAMAN BABAR, J.‑This is a State appeal challenging the acquittal of the respondent who was tried summarily by Ch. Muhammad Sharif, Sub‑Divisional Magistrate, Chishtian District Bahawalpur, for installing one roller machine for the purposes of cotton ginning without ginning license as require under section 16 (1) of the Bahawalpur Cotton Control Act and for illegal working of the same without obtaining license under section 9 (1) and Rule 8. The learned Magistrate was of the opinion that the installing of one roller is not covered by definition of a "factory" and, therefore, acquitted the accused- respondent. The State has appealed against this order of acquittal on the ground that installation of one roller machines for the purposes of cotton ginning without licence is covered by definition of word `factory' as defined by section 2(f) of the Bahawal pur Cotton (Control) Act, 1949 and as such it is an offence punishable under section 16(1) read with section 9(1) of the Bahawalpur Cotton Control Act read with Rule 8 made under the said Act. The learned Additional Advocate‑General stressed that in a similar case tried by the same Magistrate on 2nd October 1963, one Muhammad Hussain was charged for a similar offence and he was convicted and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 20,00. A certified copy of the order has been placed on the record.
2. The learned counsel for the respondent produced, during the course of argument, a certified copy of letter No. 871/D‑1, dated 13th March 1954, from the Director of Industries, Bahawalpur, Government Bahawalpur, to the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalpur, Bahawalnagar, and Rahimyar Khan. We are tempted to quote this letter in full which runs as under :‑
"Recovery of Nazarana
The Government of Alahazrat Sarkar‑i‑Ali has approved of the permission being accorded to the installation of engines upto 10 ten Horse‑power in rural areas only subject to the payment of prescribed Nazrana. Further small industrialists have been allowed to set up all small factories and two gine except cotton ginning factories on such engines. The Tehsildars and Sub‑Treasury Officers in your jurisdiction may kindly be directed to collect Nazarana at the rate of Rs. 10 per Horse power from persons installing small engines up to 10 H. P. The Nazarana may be deposited in the sub head C‑Miscellaneous under 23 Commerce & Industries and a copy of the Treasury Challan (Dakhla) be forwarded to this office for record.
The receipt of this letter may kindly be acknowledged."
A close perusal of this letter shows that the concession given to Small Industrialists in this letter does not apply to cotton ginning factories. Moreover, this letter not being in the form of a notification has no legal value to affect the provision of the Bahawalpur Cotton (Control) Act, 1949 and the rules made thereunder.
3. Section 2(f) of the Bahawalpur Cotton (Control) Act, 1949 defines "Cotton Ginning Factory" means any premises including the precincts thereof where cotton is ginned or where cotton fibre is separated from cotton seed, by any process whatever involving the use of steam, water or of electrical power." As a deduction from this definition, any premises including the precincts thereof where the cotton is ginned or where cotton fibre is separated from cotton seed, by any process whatever, is called "A Cotton Ginning Factory, no matter whether such
cotton ginning factory is installed with one roller machine or more. Such a cotton ginning factory, if installed for the purposes of cotton ginning without a ginning licence, is penalised under section 16(1) and the working of the same factory is penalised under section 9(1) of the Bahawalpur Cotton Control Act, 1949 and rule 8 of the Rules made thereunder. This conclusion of the trial Magistrate that one roller machine factory is not covered by definition of the factory is not sustainable in law, and, therefore, the acquittal of the respondent from the charge of installing and running such a factory without licence is legally erroneous in law.
4. We, therefore, set aside the order of acquittal dated 30th November 1963, convict the respondent, Muhammad Ayub Khan, for offences under section 16(1) and section 9(1) of the Bahawalpur Cotton Control Act, 1949 and sentence him to a total fine of Rs. 30.00 or in default of payment of this fine to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment.
Appeal accepted.