SHEO NARAIN LAL AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner Baij Nath is the proprietor, while the Petitioner Sheo Narain Lal is the manager of the National Printing Press, Golghar, Gorakhpur. A survey of the press was taken on 19 -7 -1967. Therefore, a notice Under Section 8(3) Apprentices Act, 1961 was issued by the Directorate on 20 -11 -1967 requiring the Petitioners to engage certain apprentices. No compliance was made of that notice and therefore, a show cause notice was issued on 22 -9 -1970 and thereafter a complaint was lodged in Court on 19 -12 -1970 for the punishment of the Petitioners Under Section 30 for contravention of Section 8(3) of the Act. The Petitioners were convicted by the City Magistrate and were sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 40/ - each. They filed a revision and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, disagreeing with the finding regarding limitation, recorded by the learned City Magistrate, has made this reference for quashing the conviction.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel on both sides. The learned Counsel has argued that the complaint, was barred by time and for that purpose ht has placed reliance upon Section 33 of the Apprentices Act. The offence complained of falls Under Section 30(1)(c) which says that if an employer contravenes the provisions of the Act relating to the number of Apprentices which he is required to engage, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine or with both. Section 33 says that no court shall take cognizance of any offence under the Act pr the Rules made thereunder exception a complaint thereof in writing made by the Apprenticeship Advisor within six months from the date on which, the offence is alleged to have been committed. The Indian Limitation Act has no application to criminal proceedings except to the extent provided therein. There is no limitation for preferring a complaint of a criminal offence unless the penal law creating the offence prescribes any period within which a complaint may be made in respect thereof. In the case of crimes committed under the Apprentices Act, a provision has been made and that provision is to the effect that cognizance of any offence cannot be taken by any Court, except on a complaint made within six months from the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed. That being so, the complaint must be made within, six months and six months have to be computed from the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed. The offence, in the instant case was committed on 19 -7 -1967 and time began to run on that date and must be allowed to run without interruption. The period of six months would be over on 18 -1 -1968. The learned Magistrate thought that the Directorate had the right to extend this period by giving a notice for compliance and waiting for a reasonable period and it is then alone that a complaint has to be filed. The duty of a Court is to interpret the law and not to legislate. When the statute says that the complaint must be instituted within six months and those six months must be counted from the date of the commission of the offence, it should be patent that that period cannot be enlarged by any device or camouflage. The law assists the vigilant and act the negligent. The Directorate may give a period of time to the defaulter to make amends by employment of apprentices but the amends must be made within the period of limitation and if not made, the complaint must be instituted within that period. In the instant case, the crime was committed on 19 -7 -1967 and the complaint was made on 19 -12 -1970 very much beyond the period of six months.