!! 1 !! IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CRIMINAL LEAVE TO APPEAL NO.31/2009 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Hatam Ali) Date of order :: 27.02.2009 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr.Anil Upadhyay, Pubic Prosecutor. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant-State. In this leave to appeal the State is challenging the judgment dated 08th May, 2006 whereby the learned trial court acquitted the non- petitioner Hatam Ali from the charges levelled against him under Section 6.21.38, 45, 61 of Factory Act, 1948 and Rules 3-B and 7, 63, 67 and 84 of the Rajasthan Factory Act, 1951. According to the facts of the case, the challan was filed against the non-petitioner for committing the aforesaid offences. After filing challan, as many as nine documents were exhibited and statement of PW-1 Surendra Singh was recorded !! 2 !! in the trial court. Thereafter, statement of non- petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded by the trial court. Learned counsel for the appellant-State vehemently argued that there was registration in favour of non-petitioner under the Factory Act and the said registration was in existence on the date of filing challan against him. But ignoring this fact, the learned trial court observed in para 8 of the judgment that Factory Inspector has exceeded his jurisdiction to file challan against the non-petitioner, so also, a wrong finding has been given by the learned trial court that the premises where Ara Machine is situated do not fall under the definition of factory enumerated in the Factory Act, 1948, therefore, the finding of learned trial court is erroneous on the ground that there was registration in favour of non- petitioner under the Factory Act. I have perused the finding given by the trial court and more specifically para 8 of the judgment. After perusing the said para, I am of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove its case whether the premises where non-petitioner is pursuing his business is a factory as defined under the Factory Act, 1948. It is the primary !! 3 !! duty of the prosecution to first prove its case by leading proper evidence. Admittedly, only one oral statement of PW-1 Surendra Singh was recorded and other witnesses were not produced before the Court to prove the prosecution case, therefore, in my opinion, the finding given by the learned trial court does not require any interference by this Court. Hence, the criminal leave to appeal is hereby dismissed. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS),J. A.K. Chouhan/- A.K. Chouhan/-