STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. VIMLA DEVI SMT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Government Advocate Shri B. S. Bhati. The State of Rajasthan has filed this Leave to Appeal Application to file a Criminal Appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali in Complaint Case No. 942/1989, whereby the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondents-accused for the offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act.

(2.) LEARNED Government Advocate Shri B. S. Bhati vehementaly submitted that the learned Magistrate was absolutely wrong in dismissing the complaint on the ground of delay. The period of limitation for filing complaint is 3 months as provided under Section 106 of the Factories Act. The learned Magistrate found that the report of the accident was received by the complainant on July 20, 1989 and he filed a complaint before the Court on October 24, 1989, means after the expiring period of limitation of 3 months. Shri B. S. Bhati submitted that mere receipt of the report is not sufficient. The Inspector has to proceed to the place of incident and investigate into the matter and after fully satisfying himself about the accident occured, he had to file a complaint.

(3.) IN this case, he investigated the place of accident on July 25, 1989 after receiving the report on July 20, 1989 and further recorded the statements of the workers on July 27, 1989, August 11, 1989 and August 14, 1989 and thereafter he lodged the complaint on October 24, 1989. Thus, the complaint was within 3 months. In support of his submission, Mr. Bhati has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of B. D. Jambhekar v. State of Gujarat AIR 1973 SC 309, wherein the Supreme Court has clearly held that the Inspector cannot be said to have acquired knowledge of the commission of the offence when he received the report. This judgment of the Supreme Court clearly supports the submission made by the learned Government Advocate Shri Bhati. Therefore, the order of acquittal recorded by the Magistrate on the ground of filing] complaint after the expiry of period of limitation was required to be setaside. Thus, the learned Magistrate was wrong in acquitting the accused on the ground of filing complaint after expiry of the period of limitation. If this was only ground, then this Court would have straight away granted leave to appeal to file Criminal Appeal against the order of acquittal. But, the learned Magistrate has also acquitted the accused on merits. The learned Magistrate found that the complainant has admitted in his cross examination that the nip guard on the nip of pressure roller and cylinder roller of Zero Felt Machine was affixed at the time of accident, as per the statements made by co -workers before him. Not only this he also stated that when he visited the factory and inspected the machine, he found the nip guard was affixed in Zero Zero Felt Machine. Unfortunately, in this case the injured Kesa Ram himself has not examined for the best reasons known to the prosecution.