S. R. K. PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) THIS Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment in STC No. 326 of 1997, on the file of the VII Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Guntur, convicting the accused to pay a fine of Rs. 700/- in default to undergo si for 15 days for the offences under Sec. 67 of the Factories Act 1948, read with Secs. 14 and 15 of the Child Labour (Prohibition and regulation) Act, 1986 (for short the Labour act ). ( 2 ) THE factual matrix that led to filing of this case can be stated in brief as follows: the Inspector of Factories I, Guntur, visited the Sri Sambasiva Cotton Traders, ankireddipalem, on 29-1-1997 at 5 p. m. He noticed V. Bujji, aged 12 years, R. Sunitha, aged 10 years, T. Varalaxmi, aged 10 years, r. Anitha, aged 10 years, and V. Vidya Rani, aged 11 years working in the said factory. Thereupon, he obtained sanction under section 105 (1) of the Factories Act and presented STC No. 326 of 1997 before the VII additional Munsif Magistrate, alleging violation of Section 67 of the Factories Act r/w Sections 14 and 15 of the Child Labour prohibition and Regulation Act of 1986. On the strength of admission made by the accused, the magistrate proceeded under section 252 Cr. P. C. and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 700/-, in default SI for 15 days in respect of the offence under Section 67 of the factories Act r/w Sections 14 and 15 of the labour Act. Thereupon, the State has preferred this appeal stating that the minimum sentenceof fine of Rs. 10,000/-has not been levied by the Magistrate and hence sought for setting aside the judgment. ( 3 ) THE accused counsel, though put in an appearance, did not urge anything. ( 4 ) SEVERAL aspects have to be considered in this case before judging the validity of the imposition of fine. The first aspect that is to be considered in this case is whether any notification has been issued under the Child labour Prohibition and Regulation Act conferring the powers on Assistant Inspectors of Factories, Guntur, to file complaint under section 16 of the said Act. The first aspect that is to be considered in this case is whether any notification has been issued under the Child labour Prohibition and Regulation Act conferring the powers on Assistant Inspectors of Factories, Guntur, to file complaint under section 16 of the said Act. It is also to be considered whether the accused can be prosecuted for the offences under Section 67 of the Factories Act as well as under sections 14 and 15 of the said Labour Act. The third aspect that is to be considered in this case is whether the magistrate has got power to impose a minimum sentence of fine of Rs. 10,000/- in a STC case. ( 5 ) BEFORE adverting to the said aspects, it is necessary to have a look at the provisions of the Factories Act in the first instance. Section 67 of the Factories Act, as amended by Act 20 of 1987, reads as follows:"prohibition of employment of young children:- No child who has not completed his fourteenth year shall be required or allowed to work in any factory. ( 6 ) IT is clear from the above Section that the Act prohibits employing of child who has not completed his 14th year to work in any factory. ( 7 ) THE parliament in its wisdom passed act 61 of 1986 i. e. , Child Labour (Prohibition) and Regulation Act, 1986, which has been notified to have come into force on 26-5- 1993. Section 14 of the said Act reads as follows:"penalties:- (1) Whoever employs any child or permits any child to work in contravention of the provisions of section 3 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to one year or with fine which shall not be less than ten thousand rupees but which may extend to twenty thousand rupees or with both. 1 (2) Whoever, having been convicted of an offence under Section 3, commits a like offence afterwards, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to two years. 1 (2) Whoever, having been convicted of an offence under Section 3, commits a like offence afterwards, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to two years. (3) Whoever (a) fails to give notice as required by section 9, or (b) fails to maintain a register as required by Section 11 or makes any false entry in any such register, or (c) fails to display a notice containing an abstract of Section 3 in this section as required by Section 12; or (d) fails to comply with or contravenes any other provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder, shall be punishable with simple imprisonment which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both. Section 15 of the said Act reads as follows:"modified application of certain laws in relation to penalties, (1) Where any person is found guilty and convicted of contravention of any of the provisions mentioned in sub-section (2), he shall be liable to penalties as provided in sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 14of this Act and not under the Acts in which those provisions are contained. (2) The provisions referred to in subsection (1) are the provisions mentioned below:- (a) Section 67 of the Factories Act, 1948 (63 of 1948); (b) Section 40 of the Mines Act, 1952 (35 of 1952); (c) Section 109 of the Merchant Shipping act, 1958 (44 of 1958); and (d) Section 21 of the Motor Transport workers Act, 1961 (27 of 1961 ). Section 20 reads as follows:"certain other provisions of law not barred:- subject to the provisions contained in section 15, the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 (63 of 1948), the Plantations Labour Act, 1951 (69 of 1951) and the Mines Act, 1952 (35 of 1952)". It is clear from the provisions of Sec. 15 that where a person is found guilty and convicted of contravention of any of the provisions mentioned in sub-section (2), he shall be liable to penalties as provided in sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 14 of this act. Section 67 of the Factories Act was mentioned as a provision, which is to be considered. Section 67 of the Factories Act was mentioned as a provision, which is to be considered. Section 16 of the Labour Act reads as follows:"procedure relating to offences:- (1) Any person, police officer or Inspector may file a complaint of the commission of an offence under this Act in any Court of competent jurisdiction. (2) Every certificate as to the age of a child which has been granted by a prescribed medical authority shall, for the purposes of this Act, be conclusive evidence as to the age of the child to whom it relates. (3) No court inferior to that of a metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence under this Act. " ( 8 ) IN order to invoke the provisions of the said Labour Act, the person who prosecutes must have the authority to prosecute. The learned Public Prosecutor is unable to place any notification, whereunder the Assistant inspector of Factories, Guntur, has been conferred with the power of Inspector to prosecute under Section 17 of the Child labour (Prohibition) and Regulation Act, 1986. In the absence of any notification, it cannot be said that the Assistant Inspector of factories has got authority to prosecute a person under Sections 14 and 15 of the said act. Moreover, he has no right to file a complaint under Section 16 as he is not authorized person to file the complaint. When once the offence is treated under 67 of the factories Act as an offence under this Act, and when once the person, who filed the charge-sheet, has no right to file the charge- sheet for want of notification conferring the power to him the charge-sheet itself is bad. It is clear from Section 14 that a minimum fine of Rs. 10,000/- has to be imposed in case of fine and imprisonment of not less than three months has to be imposed. The Factories inspector invoked the summary jurisdiction of the lower court. ( 9 ) IT is clearly stated under Section 262 of cr. P. C. thatno sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding three months shall be passed in case of conviction under Chapter 21 of the summary Trials. The Magistrate of I Class cannot impose more than Rs. 5,000/- of fine. The STC case itself is presented before the magistrate. ( 9 ) IT is clearly stated under Section 262 of cr. P. C. thatno sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding three months shall be passed in case of conviction under Chapter 21 of the summary Trials. The Magistrate of I Class cannot impose more than Rs. 5,000/- of fine. The STC case itself is presented before the magistrate. For the offence under Section 67 of the Factories Act, the penalty mentioned under Section 14 of the Labour Act has to be levied in view of the provisions of Section 15. But, such a thing can be done only when the inspector has got power to prosecute and present a complaint. This is one such case where Assistant Inspector of Factories has no jurisdiction to present a complaint for want of notification conferring the power under this Act. He cannot prosecute a person under Section 67 of the Factories Act in view of theprovisions of Section 15. I also find that the Magistrate has no power to impose fine of more than Rs. 5,000/ -. The minimum fine contemplated under Section 14 is Rs. 10,000/ -. ( 10 ) THERE is an anomaly in this case. It is the look out of the legislature to bring about necessary amendments to this Act as well as to the Factories Act. Notification conferring powers on the factories inspectors have to be made and it is not made. So long it is not made, the factories inspectors cannot proceed either under Section 14 or 15 of the Child labour (Prohibition) and Regulation Act or under the Factories Act in view of the supersession made under the said Act. The laying of charge-sheet is bad and the conviction awarded has to be set aside in toto for want of jurisdiction and the appeal has to be allowed. ( 11 ) I accordingly set aside the conviction as the Assistant Inspector of Factories has no right to file a complaint since Section 67 of the Factories Act is superseded in respect of penalties by Section 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition) and Regulation Act. Before parting with the case, I state that it is a legal anomaly created by the legislature. It is for them to solve the riddle and it is not for the court to make any law. ( 12 ) HENCE, the appeal is allowed. Before parting with the case, I state that it is a legal anomaly created by the legislature. It is for them to solve the riddle and it is not for the court to make any law. ( 12 ) HENCE, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded imposing fine is set aside. The accused is entitled for refund of the fine amount after the appeal time is over.