SUDHIR KUMAR GHOSH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is directed against a proceeding before the learned Subdivisional Magistrate, Howrah, in case no. 1829c of 1972 and the order dated 2nd June, 1975 passed in the said proceeding.

(2.) THE said proceeding arises out of a petition of complaint filed by the Inspector of Factories, West Bengal The petition of complaint was filed on the basis that the petitioner before us has committed an offence under section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) for contravention of section 6 of the said Act read with Rule 3 of the West Bengal factories Rules, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules ). The allegation made in the petition of complaint is to the effect that while visiting the premises known as Heat Treater Industries (Private) Limited situated at 12/9, Hrishikesh Ghosh Lane, P. O. Salkia, P. S. Golabari, on the 4th July, 1972, the complainant found that more than ten workers were employed in the manufacturing process which was being carried on with the aid of power. According to the complainant, the premises constituted a factory as defined under section 2 (m) (i) of the said Act but it was ascertained by the complainant that no previous permission in writing from the Chief Inspector of Factories, West Bengal, as required under the provisions of section 6 of the said Act read with rule 3 of the said Rules was obtained for the site on which the said factory was situated and for taking the buildings on such site into use as a- factory. Upon such complaint being filed, cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate who directed issue of process. The accused-petitioner before us duly entered appearance and several proceedings were taken therein. Ultimately it appears that on 2. 6. 75 an order was passed by the learned Magistrate on the petition filed on 12. 4. 75 by the accused-petitioner before us.

(3.) THE contention of Mr. Ghosh appearing before us was firstly to the effect that the petition of complaint was barred by limitation. In this context Mr. Ghosh relied on the provisions of section 106 of the said Act. There is no merit in this contention. Under section 106 of the said Act no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under the said 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 the Inspector. The petition of complaint is dated 3. 10. 72 and it appears from the order-sheet that cognizance was taken on the very same date. In the petition of complaint it has been stated that on 4. 7. 72 certain facts were found which is the basis of the alleged commission of the offence. In that view of the matter it is clear that the cognizance was taken within three months of the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of the Inspector within the meaning of the said section. Accordingly, we have no hesitation in rejecting this contention of Mr. Ghosh.