LABOUR ENFORCEMENT OFFICER Vs. C V AVARACHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What is the crucial date to be reckoned for considering question of limitation in a criminal case the date of presentation of the complaint, the date of its re-presentation after curing the defects or the date of cognizance What is the duty of a criminal court returning a complaint for curing the defects and re-presentation under R.68 of the Kerala Criminal Rules of Practice These questions arise for consideration in these appeals.

(2.) Aggrieved by the judgments of acquittal in prosecutions under the Payment of Wages (Mines) Rules, 1956, the complainant Labour Enforcement Officer (Central), Cochin, has preferred these appeals. Two prosecutions were initiated by the complainant against the respondent/accused alleging violation of the provisions of the Payment of Wages (Mines) Rules. To comply with the mandate that only three violations can be included in one prosecution, two separate complaints were filed. The violations were detected on 12-12-1991. The offences are punishable with fine only as per the statutory provisions. The period of limitation for cognizance under S.468 of the Code of Criminal Porceduce is six months as the offences alleged are punishable with fine only.

(3.) The complaint was filed on 10.6.1992. The offences having been detected on 12.12.1991, the complaint on 10.6.1992 is admittedly not barred by limitation. The complaint has been preferred within the period of six months from the date of detection of offences on 12.12.1991. The accused denied the offences alleged against him. The trial was proceeded with. Ultimately, the impugned judgements of acquittal were passed on the sole ground that the prosecutions are barred by limitation in view of Chap.36 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.