LexARDESHIR H. BHIWANDIWALA versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1961] x96x taking a torch with him, access to the house of the 5 1 deceased being obtained by stealth by scaling over a Madh;:'•;.adesh wall. Then again, there was the mood of exaltation v. which the accused exhibited after he had put her out Ahmadullah of her life. It was a crime committed not in a sudden mood of insanity but one that was preceded by careful Ayyangar f. planning and exhibiting cool calculation in execution and directed against a person who was considered to be the enemy. ]anua,.y a7. The appeal is therefore allowed, the order of acquit- tal passed against the respondent set aside and in its place will be substituted a finding that the respondent is guilty of mQJ.'der under s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In the normal course the proper punishment for the heinous and premeditated crime committed with inhuman brutality would have been a sentence of dee.th. But ta.king into account the fact that the accused ha.a been acquitted by the Sessions Judge- a.n order which has been affirmed by the High Court- we consider that the ends of justice would be met if we sentence the accused to rigorous imprisonment for life. It is needless to add that the State Government will take steps to have the accused treated in a.n asylum until he is cured of his illness, if this still continues. Appeal allowed. ARDESHIR H. BHIW ANDIWALA ti. THE STATE OF BOMBAY. (JAFEB IMAM, J. L. KAPUR, K. c. DAS GUPTA, RAGHUBAR DAYAL and N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.) Factory-Sall Works, whether a factory-Premises, if include open land-Manufacturing process-Conversion of sea water into salt-Factories Act, z948 (LXIII of I948), ss. 2(k) and (m), 92. The appellant was convicted of an offence under s. 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, for working a salt works without obtain- ing a licence. The salt works extended over an area of about 250 acres. The only buildings on this land were temporary shelters for the resident labour and for an office; at some places there were pucca platforms for fixing the water pump wh•ll I • 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COUHT REPORTS 593 required to pump water from the sea. The appellant contend· I96r ed (i) that the salt works was not a factory as defined ins. 2(m) of the Act, (ii) that the word "premises" in the definition of A•deshi• factory did not include open land, and (iii) that in converting H. 8hiwandiwala sea water into salt the appellant was not carrying on any manu- v. facturing process as defined in s. 2(k). State of Bombay Held, that the salt works was a factory within the definition given in the Act and that the appellant was rightly convicted for working it without a licence. The word " premises" is a generic term meaning open land or land with buildings or build- ings alone; the salt works came within the expression "premises" in the definition of the word " factory ". The extraction of salt from sea water was not due merely to natural forces but was due to human efforts aided by natural forces. The process of conver- sion of sea water into salt was a "manufacturing process " as defined in. cl. (k) of s. 2, inasmuch as salt was manufactured from sea water by a process of treatment and adaptation. By this process sea \.vater, a non.commercial article, was Cv .... verted into a different thing salt, a commercial article. Kent v. Astley, L.R. (1869) 5 Q. B. 19, Redgrave v. Lee, (1874) 9 Q. B. 363 and Nash v. Hollinshead, [rgor] r K.B. 700, distinguished. Sedgwick v. Watney, Combe, Reid & Co. Ltd. [1931] A.C. 446, Grove v. Lloyds British Testing Co. Ltd. [1931] A.C. 466, Kaye v. Burrows & Ors. and Hines v. Eastern Counties Farmers' Co-opera- tive Association Ltd. [1931] A.C. 477, The State of Kerala v. V. M. Patel, Cr. App. No. 42 of 1959, decided on 12-10-1960, In re: Chinniah, Manager, Sangu Soap Works, A.LR. 1957 Mad. 755, Paterson v. H11nt (1909) IOI L.T.R. 571, Law v. Graham, [1901] 2 K.B. 327, Ho.ue v. Truman, Hanbury, Buxton & Co. (1902) 86 L.T.R. 417, and JicNicol v. Pinch, [1906] 2 K.B. 352, referred to. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 32 of 1956. Appeal from the judgment a.nd order dated Octo- ber 7 and 10, 1955, of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 817of1955. Porus A. Mehta, R. Ganapathy Iyer and G. Gopala- krishnan, for the appellant. N. S. Bindra, R.H. Dhebar and T. M. Sen, for the respondent . 1961. January 27. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.