JUDGMENT : Acharya, J. - This revision is directed against the appellate judgment passed by the Sessions Judge, Cuttack in Criminal Appeal No. 314 of 1965, upholding the conviction and sentence of the Petitioner u/s 92 of the Factories Act passed by a Magistrate, 1st Class, Cuttack. 2. It is alleged by the prosecution that p.w. 1, an Inspector of Factories inspected a factory named as M/s. Kalinga Cables and Metal Caste Co. at B-12, Industrial Estate Khapuria, Cuttack, on 6-6-1963 once at 9 A.M. and again at 7 P.M. and found 11 workers engaged in the said concern which was running with power. Considering the said concern to be a "factory" as defined u/s 2(m) of the Factories Act, 194, the Petitioner, as the alleged occupier of the said factory, was prosecuted u/s 92 of the said Act, for violation of certain provisions of the said Act. 3. The defence all through asserted that there never existed a factory named M/s. Kalinga Cables and Metal caste Co. at Khapuria, and that "M/s. Kalinga. Cables" and "M/s. Metal Caste Company" were entirely two different and independent concerns. In the former the Appellant was the proprietor, and in the latter, which was a partnership concern, he was the Managing. Partner. The Director of Industries, Orissa allotted half of the Unit 'B' type building to M/s. Kalinga Cables, and another half of the same building to M/s. Metal Caste Co. by two separate letters Exts. C and D, and as such the two concerns were accidentally in the same building, only due to the want of separate and suitable accommodation. It was therefore contended that this prosecution was misconceived as the total number of 11 workers in two separate and independent concerns were taken into consideration as working in one factory which was non-existent either in fact or in name. 4. I find from Exts. C and D that the Director of Industries, Orissa allotted half of the Unit 'B' type building in the Industrial Estate, Cuttack-3 to M/s. Kalinga Cables, C/O the Petitioner, for a workshop for manufacturing non-ferrous wise and the other half of the same building was allotted to M/s. Metal V - Caste Co. as such for a workshop for manufacturing Brass and Aluminum fittings. Thus these two workshops were meant for and concerned with the manufacturing of two different types of articles. The certificate of Registration (Ext. as such for a workshop for manufacturing Brass and Aluminum fittings. Thus these two workshops were meant for and concerned with the manufacturing of two different types of articles. The certificate of Registration (Ext. B), issued by the Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack II Circle, indicates that M/s. Kalinga Cables "Private Ltd Company" inserted later in 1964 in the Industrial Estate had a separate entity of its own. By Ext. A dated 29-6-1963, the Petitioner informed the Chief Inspector of Factors, that M/s. Kalinga Cables and M/s. Metal Caste Co., though housed in the same premises, were two different concerns, and he was the proprietor of the former and only a Managing Partner of the latter, and that on 6-6-1963 when the Inspector visited the place it was only the Kalinga Cables which was functioning, and the Metal Caste Company, which had not started working by then, bad employed three persons temporarily only for that day to try a piece of work for that concern. There is nothing to show if p.w. 1 or anybody else of the Department of Industries took care to enquire into the correctness or otherwise of all that was stated in Ext. A. No efforts were ever made by p.w. 1 to seize and/or inspect the Muster-roll or the other relevant registers of the above named workshops to satisfy himself and to prove the necessary details about the workshops inspected by him. 5. In Exts. 1 and 2. p.w. 1 mentioned the names of the workers who were found working at the relevant times of his inspection. But in Ext. 1 against two of the eight workers named therein, it is noted "2nd shift". No satisfactory explanation could be given as to how the names of two workers in the evening shift mentioned in Ext. 2, drawn up at 7 P.M. could find place in the report Ext. 1, stated to have been drawn up by p.w. 1 at 9 A.M. soon after his inspection of the morning shift on the same day. 6. It is clear from the discussion made above that "M/s. Kalinga Cables" and "M/s. Metal Caste Company" were two independent and distinct concerns for manufacturing two types of articles; and that a factory of the name and title "M/s. Kalinga Cables and Metal Caste Company" did not in fact exist at the premises inspected by p.w. 1 on 6-6-1963. 6. It is clear from the discussion made above that "M/s. Kalinga Cables" and "M/s. Metal Caste Company" were two independent and distinct concerns for manufacturing two types of articles; and that a factory of the name and title "M/s. Kalinga Cables and Metal Caste Company" did not in fact exist at the premises inspected by p.w. 1 on 6-6-1963. As such p.w. 1 was absolutely wrong in considering the total number of workers of two such concerns as working in one factory, and that too in a factory which was not in existence either in name or in fact. Thus the prosecution is misconceived and vitiated, being initiated and based on such incorrect consideration and wrong facts. On this finding and on the discussions made above on the other aspects of the case, I hold that the conviction and sentence of the Petitioner cannot be maintained. In the result, therefore, the conviction and sentence of the Petitioner are set aside. The revision is accordingly allowed. Final Result : Allowed