NITEEN PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned HCGP is directed to take notice for the respondent-State. Heard the Senior Counsel Sri Udaya Holla for petitioner and HCGP for respondent State.

(2.) Petitioner No.1 was an occupier and petitioner No.2 was the Manager of the Factory. Respondent conducted inspection of factory of PepsiCo India Holdings Private Limited situated in Nelamangala on 16.3.2017 and found that the petitioner-Company has violated the provisions of Sections 65(3)(i) , 65(3)(ii) , 65(3)(iii) and 65(3)(iv) of the Factories Act ('Act' for short) and subsequently a complaint was filed and registered on

(3.) 7.2017. 3. The main contention which has been taken up by the learned Senior Counsel is that the complaint and consequent proceedings are untenable and bad in the eye of law. The complaint has been recorded on 16.3.2017 as per Annexure-A and subsequently the said complaint has been registered on 3.7.2017. It is his further submission that as per the Act, the complaint has to be registered within three months from the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of the respondent. In order to substantiate the said contention, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of J.J.Irani and another Vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in (2014)15 SCC 813. It is his further submission that as per Section 106 of the Act, the Court shall not take cognizance of any offence punishable under the said Act unless the complaint is made within three months from the date on which the alleged commission of offence came to the knowledge of the Inspector-respondent. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition and to quash the proceedings.