STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. MOHAN LAL SOLANKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. The State has challenged in this appeal the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali dismissing the complaint filed by the State under Section 92 of the Factories Act only on the short ground of limitation and acquitted the respondents accused.

(2.) THE learned Magistrate held that the complainant came to know about the accident of 31. 5. 88 on 2. 6. 88 and, therefore, the complaint ought to have been filed on or before 1. 9. 88 under the Act. Period of three months is provided for filing complaint. Instead of that the complaint was filed by his successor, Senior Inspector, in this office Shri V. D Varani on 22. 9. 88. Thus, the complaint was time barred by 21 days. THErefore, it was beyond the period of limitation and, therefore, no cog- nizance can be taken by him.

(3.) LEARNED counsel Shri Parihar also argued that there are numerous decision of several High Courts under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, wherein, the period of limitation was provided for filing the complaint. Mr. Parihar submitted that Allahabad High Court and other High Courts have held that if the complaint was time barred then it was to be dismissed by the learned Magistrate as Section 5 of Limitation Act would apply. Even assuming for the sake of argument that there are such decisions under the Negotiable Instrument Act of different High Courts even then as held by this Court in S. B. Criminal Petition No. 124/96 decided on 24. 5. 96 (3) held to be good law. It may be stated that there is no decision of this court under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. In S. B. Criminal Appeal No. 124/96 (supra) I have held that the complaint was within the period of limitation and in alternative I have also held that if the complaint was held to be time barred then also it was the duty of the learned Magistrate to take cognizance after condo- ning the delay because in such type of offences committed under the Factories Act and Economic Offence, it is the duty of the courts below to see to it that the cases filed under the Factories Act and for the Economic Offence, under various Acts it should try to do substantial justice and not to adopt short cut methods of dismissing the complaint on the ground of limitation which is highly depricated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Judgment reported in AIR 1987 S. C. page 1353 (supra) therefore, the submission of Mr. Parihar cannot be accepted and it is rejected.