STATE Vs. SATNARAIN BHUVANIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals have been heard together because the parties are the same, and the point involved is also common. This judgment will govern them both.

(2.) The respondent in both cases, Satnarain Bhuwania, is the occupier and manager of Ram Sugar Factory at Amarpur in Bhagalpur District. R. C. Sinha, Inspector of Factories, Bhagalpur Circle, inspected the factory on the 9th and 10th January, 1956. He sent two petitions of complaint to the District Magistrate of Bhagalpur, one on the 13th March, 1958, which is in question in Government Appeal No. 20, and the other on the 21st March, 1956, which is in question in Government Appeal No. 21. He complained in both petitions that the respondent had committed, offences under, Section 92 of the Factories Act (LXIII of 1948), which will be referred to hereafter as the Act. The Subdivisional Magistrate of Banka took cognizance of the two cases on the 2nd and 24th, April, 1956, and they were later, transferred for disposal to Shri V. Vihari, a Judicial Magistrate with first class powers at Banka. A preliminary objection was taken in both cases before him on the 19th July, 1958, to the effect that, in view of Section 106 of the Act, cognizance of an offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act could not be taken more than three months after the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of the Inspector. This objection prevailed, and the learned Magistrate, by his order of the same date, acquitted the respondent in both cases under Section 245 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The State of Bihar has filed these appeals against those two orders.

(3.) The learned Additional Standing Counsel has contended that the orders of acquittal are based upon an erroneous interpretation of Section 106, and that that section does not prohibit the taking of cognizance after three months. It is, therefore, necessary to consider and find the true interpretation of the section which reads :