There is -no document executed between the respondent and the Receiving Railway hereunder the Receiving Railway was expressly authorized to create the Forwarding Railway the immediate bailee of the owner of the goods. Further, she would submit that, in the present case, the mitigating circumstances outweighed the aggravating circumstances, namely that the age of the accused-appellants, the absence of any criminal antecedents and the possibility that they could be reformed and rehabilitated would reflect that a sentence of life imprisonment would suffice the ends of justice.

It has itself made provision for the payment of overtime wages to employees in all establishments by s. It is in reference to this provision that s. In default of payment of the 'ordinary' fines it directed the appellant to undergo further imprisonment for certain periods, but there was no such direction with respect to the 'compulsory' fines. He was tried in several trials under S. What we find is only that the Receiving Railway received the goods of the respondent and delivered the wagon containing the said goods to the care of the Forwarding Railway, and the latter took over charge of the wagon, carried it to New Delhi and offered to deliver the goods not lost to the respondent on payment of the railway freight.

After the partition of India, the trials by the Special Tribunal took place at Simla. The appellant as also the State of Punjab appealed to this Court. This conclusion is obviously consistent -with the policy of the Act. Relying upon the said passages, an argument is advanced to the effect that the consignor i. 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was illegal ; (2) the joint trial of the appellant and Henderson at Simla was also illegal : (3) SS. XXIX of 1943, as amended by ordinance No.

This part provides that the provisions of the Factories Act shall apply to the persons in question notwithstanding anything contained lawyers in Supreme Cour of Indiat the said Act. 2(1), and it necessarily involves the consequence that the relevant provision about the payment of overtime wages applies only to workers as defined and not to employees in factories who are not workers. It would have been possible for the Legislature to include in the present statute all the relevant provisions of the Factories Act and make them applicable to factories as defined by s.

420 of the Indian Penal Code along with Henderson, charged under S. P-50, the railway receipt dated September 4, 1947, does not expressly confer any such power. The said Act contains the provision by which workers are defined under s. In the absence - of any contract between the two Governments or the, Railways, the legal basis on which the conduct of the respondent and the Railways can be sustained is that of the respondent delivered the goods to the Receiving Railway with an authority to create the Forwarding Railway as his immediate bailee from the point the wagon was put on its rails.

But the facts found in the case irresistibly lead to that conclusion. There 83 was no treaty between the two countries in the matter of through booked traffic; at any rate, none has been placed before us. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants would vehemently argue in favour of commutation of the death sentence awarded to the appellants as the case did not fall within the purview of rarest of rare cases.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-State would seek to support the judgment and order passed by the High Court and Sessions Court. , the respondent, authorised his bailee, namely, the Receiving Railway, to entrust the goods to the Forwarding Railway during their transit through India to their destination and the facts disclosed in the case sustain in the said plea. The appellant was convicted at these trials and sentenced to imprisonment ranging from Punjab one year to three years, and payment of fines of various amounts.

420/109 of the Code for abetment of those offences, before a special Tribunal at Lahore, functioning 90 under Ordinance No. 2(9); but apparently the Legislature thought that the same object can be achieved by enacting the second part of s. 70 thus serves the purpose of clarifying the position that the Factories Act is made applicable to employees in factories and that they are not governed by any of the provisions of the Act. The non-obstante clause in s. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that (1) the offences having been committed at Kolhapur, then outside British India, the trial at Simla, in the absence of any certificate or sanction given under S.

70 has provided that notwithstanding the said provision the relevant provisions of the Factories Act will apply to persons employed in a factory. The High Court, on appeal, affirmed the convictions but varied the sentences by reducing the term of imprisonment and setting aside the 'compulsory' fines. The Tribunal divided the fines into 'ordinary' and 'compulsory', the latter by virtue of s, 10 of the Ordinance, which prescribed a minimum fine equal to the amount procured by the offence.