DAMODARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused in C. C. No. 43 of 1958 who had been convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Trivandrum under S. 92 of the Factories Act, XLIII of 1948 and whose appeal to the Sessions judge of Trivandrum has been dismissed has filed this revision.

(2.) THE Inspector of Factories filed a complaint against the accused under S. 105 of the Factories Act alleging that the accused had contravened S. 6, clause (1) (a) of the Act and R. 3 of the Factories Rules by conducting a manufacturing process with the aid of power and employing more than 9 workers without obtaining pervious permission in writing of the Chief inspector of Factories and also for having failed to apply for registration and obtaining licence, offences punishable under S. 92 of the Factories Act. Those facts were not denied and the only point that was raised in the case was that in view of S. 106 of the Act, the complaint is barred by limitation. Both the courts below found that there was no bar of limitation and found the accused guilty of the offence he stood charge 1 with, and convicted and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-

(3.) IN Maxwell on INterpretation of Statutes, 10th edition, page 351, it is stated: "again, when so many "clear days" or so many days "at least", are given to do an act, or "not less than" so many days are to intervene, both the terminal days are excluded from the computation. IN other cases, it would seem, the rule is to exclude the first and include the last day". If this rule is adopted in this case then 28-11- 57 can be excluded and the complaint need be filed only on 28-2-58 and it would be within time.