PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. VEERABHADRAPPA LAKSHMINARAYANA SETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case, the Inspector of Factories inspected the factory in question on 5 -10 -1950 and found that the accused had failed to construct a pucca dust -proof husk Chamber as required by Section 14, Factories Act. The failure to do this is an offence punishable under section 92 of the Act. Under section 106 of the Act no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act unless complaint thereof is made within 3 months of the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of the inspector. A complaint for this offence must be laid within 3 months from the above date, i.e., 5 -10 -1950. But the complaint was laid on 15 -3 -1951 and it is clearly beyond 3 months. But it is argued that the Inspector visited the factory again on 24 -1 -1951 when also he found the above defect and the complaint being within 3 months from the later date, the complaint is within time. In support of this conlention a decision of Subba Rao J. in - - 'Cr. P. C. No. 417 of 1950' is cited. In my view, the period of 3 months is to be calculated from the time the Inspector had first knowledge of the offence. Otherwise, it would only mean an extension of period. The knowledge in the section means the knowledge which the Inspector had first obtained and not subsequently. In view of the different opinion which Subba Rao J. has held it is necessary that this should be decided by a Bench. I therefore direct this to be posted before a Bench. Govinda Menon, J.

(2.) THIS appeal has been referred to a Bench by Somasundaram J. on account of a difference of view between himself and Subba Rao J. with regard to the proper construction to be put upon section 106, Factories Act, 63 of 1948. The facts are stated in the judgment of our learned brother, Somasundaram J. and need not be restated here. What happened was that the respondent here failed to comply with the provisions of section 14, Factories Act, by not putting up a dust -proof husk chamber in the factory, and this was noticed by the Inspector of Factories when he visited the place on 5 -10 -1950. As a result of that, the Inspector issued a notice to the manager and the occupier to rectify this defect within a period of time mentioned by him. Nothing was done with the result that when the Inspector again visited the factory on 24 -1 -1951 it was found that the 'status quo ante' continued, whereupon a charge -sheet under section 92, Factories Act, for having committed an offence under section 14, Factories Act, was laid before the Magistrate on 15 -3 -1951. Among other points, the learned Magistrate found that the prosecution was barred by the provisions of section 106, Factories Act, because the alleged offence came to the knowledge of the Inspector on 5 -10 -1950 when he first visited the factory, and the prosecution having been launched more than three months thereafter, was barred by the provisions of that section. Subba Rao J. in - - 'Cr. R. C. No. 417 of 1950' took the view that such offences were continuing ones and, according to the learned Judge, if the argument of limitation were to prevail, it would lead to an anomalous situation that once the authorities concerned overlooked a contravention of a certain specific provision by the manager or the owner of the factory, they would be precluded for ever from complaining against subsequent delinquencies on his part. Such being the case, the learned Judge was of opinion that, being a continuing wrong, every succeeding act gave rise to a cause of action.

(3.) WE respectfully are in agreement with these dicta.