JUDGMENT Mahesh Chandra, J. - This is a Government appeal against acquittal by Sri D. K. Jain, Magistrate 1st Class, Meerut. The Chief Inspector of Factories filed a complaint against the occupier and the Manager of the Modi Sugar Mills, Modinager for breach of Rule 3 of the U. P. Factories Rules. It was alleged that the Hopper house of the factory had been extended and taken into use as a part of the factory without obtaining previous permission. It was further alleged that the manufacturing process was being carried on with the aid of power without getting a certificate of stability in the prescribed form No. 2 signed by a person possessing the prescribed qualification. These defects were detected by the Inspector of Factories Sri P. C. Joshi on 9-2-1963 when he inspected the factory. 2. The defence was that the Hopper house was not extended and that only the hopper was extended and that for the extension of the hopper only no permission was necessary. 3. The learned Magistrate went into the question of the extension of the hopper house and referred to the admission of the Manager himself regarding extension but then the learned Magistrate based his order of acquittal on two factors one was that before the complaint had actually been filed on 3-5-1963 the factory had applied in form No. I on 27th April, 1963, secondly, that there was no mala fide intention on the part of the appellant. Both these factors are of little importance in arriving at the conclusion whether the respondents had committed the offence or not. The offence would be committed if Hopper house had been extended without permission before the date of the inspection. The fact that an application in form No. 1 had been submitted later on before the filing of the complain would not imply that no offence has been committed. Nor would the question of intention be material for conviction if factory rules or the Factory Act has been violated. It has been noticed that some of the Magistrates are apt to brush aside lightly offences connected with social and economic legislations. Nor would the question of intention be material for conviction if factory rules or the Factory Act has been violated. It has been noticed that some of the Magistrates are apt to brush aside lightly offences connected with social and economic legislations. They forget that very often a factory manager or occupier, who is not following the rules or the regulations prescribed by law, may cause great danger to the health of the employees working in the factory or even deaths as a result of his failure to follow the regulations. Similarly, by adulteration of foods the offender may even be causing slow death to a number of persons. It is consequently necessary that when dealing with such legislations the Magistrates should pay as much attention to these offences as to other offences with which the Magistrates were more concerned when it was only a police State and not a welfare State. 4. In the present case, it will not be correct to acquit the respondents merely because there was no mala fide intention or because the factory manager had made an application in form No. 1 before the complaint was actually filed. It is however true that the factory Manager was not given under Section 342 Criminal P. C., an opportunity to explain his admission regarding the extension of the Hopper house and that when such an admission was to be considered as a circumstance regarding the alleged action of the factory Manager he should have been given such an opportunity to explain this circumstance arising out of his admission. It would, therefore, be necessary to send the case for a fresh decision on merits after giving the respondents an opportunity to explain their action. 5. The result is that the appeal is allowed. The acquittal is set aside and the case is' sent back for a fresh trial to the District Magistrate, Meerut, who will either try the case himself or transfer it to any other Magistrate competent to try it.