STATE Vs. S D GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has arisen out of the order dated 16th January 1969 passed by a Magistrate 1st Class Saharanpur dismissing the complaint filed against the respondent for his prosecution under Section 92 of the Factories Act.

(2.) THE prosecution case, very briefly stated, was as follows: Sri M. C. Mathur Inspector of Factories Meerut Region, Meerut. inspected M/s New International Industries Pacca Bazar Saharanpur on 10th May 67 and found that the factory was committing a breach of Rule 3 of the rules framed under the Factories Act punishable under Section 92 thereof, A complaint was therefore submitted by Mr. M. C. Mathur to the District Magistrate Saharanpur praying that cognizance of the offence may be taken by him. The complaint bears no date but it was sent to the District Magistrate through a letter dated 2nd of August 67. It can therefore be presumed that the complaint had been prepared on or before 2nd of August 1967. The complaint was transferred to the City Magistrate for disposal under orders dated 4th August 67 passed by the Additional District Magistrate. The first order on the order sheet of the court of City Magistrate Saharanpur is dated 26th of August 67. By this order the learned Magistrate directed that the case be registered and the respondent be summoned for 16tih September 67. It appears that after appearance before the City Magistrate, the respondent raised an objection that his prosecution was barred by time as it was on 26th of August 67, i. e. , subsequent to the statutory period of three months, that the cognizance was taken by the Court. This objection found favour with the learned City Magistrate with the result he dismissed the complaint ns barred bv time. Feeling aggrieved against it the State of U, P. has come up in appeal before this Court.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel ore. either side and have also perused the record of the case. The relevant part of Section 106 of the Factories "act, on which reliance has been placed by the Court below for dismissing the complaint as barred, by time, reads as follows: No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act unless; complaint thereof is made within three: months of the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the-knowledge of an Inspector. " A perusal of the above would clearly reveal that what the section requires is that the complaint should be made within three months. Once the complaint is made within that period cognizance thereof can be taken any time thereafter. This was the view expressed by this Court in case Gopal Das Saxeria v State AIR 1955 All 511 = (1955 Cri LJ 1232 ).