V S METHA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The point that arises for consideration in these revisions is what exactly is the period of limitation prescribed in S. 106 of the Factories Act for launching of prosecutions for offences under the Act.

(2.) In all these cases, the State, through the Assistant Inspector of Factories, had filed complaints in Criminal Courts for breach of certain provisions of the Act punishable under Section 92 of the said Act. Section 106 of the Factories Act reads as follows:- "No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act unless compliant thereof is made within three months of the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of an Inspector: Provided that where the offence consists of disobeying a written order made by an Inspector, compliant thereof may be made within six months of the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed".

(3.) In so far as the knowledge of the Inspector is concerned it is contended that in the first two of the revisions i.e., Nos. 312 and 313 of 68, the Inspector had visited the factory on 29-8-66 and the complaint was lodged on 29-11-66 and in the three other cases Cr. R. Cs. 333, 334 and 335 of 1968, he visited the factory on 21-8-66 and the compliant was lodged on 21-11-66. It has been contended that the prosecution is beyond time. Both the lower Courts have held against this contention. Hence these revisions.