STATE Vs. B M THAPER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A learned Single Judge has referred these two appeals, filed by State of U. P. under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for decision by a larger Bench.

(2.) ON 6-3-72, Sri V. N. Agarwal Inspector of Factories U. P. Incharge Gorakhpur Region, forwarded two complaints under Section 92 of the U. P. Factories Act, against Sri B. M. Thaper, occupier, and Sri M. L. Chopra, Manager of M/s. Deoria Sugar Mills Ltd. to the District Magistrate, Deoria. These two complaints were headed in the Court of District Magistrate Deoria' and contained a prayer that the court may take action against the two accused The complaints were also accompanied by two covering letters containing the following request by the Factory Inspector :- "It is requested that the cognizance on the complaint may kindly be taken by 6-3-72, the date on which the priod of limitation as provided under Section 106 of the Factories Act, 1948 will expire, to avoid dismissal of the complaint by trying court at a later stage. This may kindly be given top priority." The same day i.e. on 6-3-72, the District Magistrate forwarded the two complaints to S. D. M., Deoria for disposal. The complaints were received by S. D. M , Deoria on 7-3-72 and he after registering the cases against the accused persons, summoned them for 25-3-72.

(3.) BEING aggrieved, the State Government has filed these two appeals before this Court. When the appeals came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge, learned counsel appearing for the State relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of State v. S. D. Gupta, 1973 CrLJ 999 and contended that what section 106 of the U. P. Factories Act requires is that the complaint is made within this period cognizance thereof can be taken at any time there after. If the complaint is made within time, the fact that the court, in which the complaint is filed dealt with it administratively and transferred it to another court for disposal, cannot undo the making of it. He urged that as in the instant case, the two complaints made by the Factories Inspector, were received in the office of the District Magistrate on 6-3-72, they had been, irrespective of the date when the S. D. M. took action there on, made within the time prescribed by section 106 of the U. P. Factories Act and the order dismissing the complaint on the ground that it was barred by time can not be sustained.