JUDGMENT Henderson, J. - This conviction cannot possibly be supported. The Appellant has been found guilty of an offence punishable under sec. 63 of the Factories Act on the ground that he failed to produce on demand by an Inspector a register kept in his custody in pursuance of the Act. The only evidence is to be found in the deposition of the Inspector himself. He went to inspect the Factory on the 30th May, 1936, and he was taken round by the Assistant Manager. He never saw the Appellant there. He asked the Assistant Manager to produce the register. The Assistant Manager failed to do so and the excuse he gave was that the book was locked up in the Manager's office. I may mention that the Appellant was the Manager in question. 2. It is thus perfectly clear that the prosecution never gave any evidence to prove that any demand was made on the Appellant and so long as words bear any meaning at all, sec. 63 would have no kind of application. 3. The learned Deputy Legal Remembrancer attempted to support the conviction by arguing that there is really a sort of vicarious responsibility recognised by this Act. The person on whom the demand was made and who refused to comply with it is the Assistant Manager. The Appellant cannot possibly be convicted, unless he is liable to be punished for the offence of somebody else. 4. Now, it is perfectly true that there is a good deal of vicarious responsibility recognised by this Act. I need only refer to sec. 60 which provides for such penalties. The offences referred to in sec. 63 are expressly excluded. Under r. 65, sub-sec. (5) all registers are to be available in the factory for examination by the Inspector. Here, again, a breach of this particular rule has been expressly excluded in sec. 60. 5. The learned Magistrate went on to infer that the Appellant was really hiding himself in the factory in order to avoid meeting the Inspector. All I need say is that there is no evidence whatever to support this conclusion and, even if he were doing so, he would not be guilty of the offence of which he has been convicted. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed, the conviction and sentence are set aside and the fine, if paid, will be refunded.