SINGH H M P Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is for quashing the order dated January 16, 2003 passed by C.J.M., Bokaro in F.A. Case No. 1/2003 whereby and whereunder he took cognizance of the offence under the Factories Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

(2.) It is alleged that on October 15, 2002 at 13.30 hours an accident took place in the Steel Melting Shop No. 2 of Bokaro Steel Plant, while a Crane was operating, in the said plant. In that accident one worker, namely, Chandrika Prasad died. It is stated that notice of aforesaid accident was given to the Inspector of Factories on October 16, 2002. It is further stated that thereafter the Inspector of Factory, Bokaro inspected the Factory Premises on October 19, 2002, October 22, 2002, October 24, 2002 and October 28, 2002 and found that as per the provisions contained under Section 29 of the aforesaid 'Act' read with Rule 56-A of the Bihar Factories Rules, the Crane had not been thoroughly examined by competent person and the examination report had also not been entered in the relevant registers. It is stated that the Inspector further found that the workers were asked to work in dangerous and insecure condition which was violative of Rule 55-A of Bihar Factories Rules, 1956. Accordingly, it is stated that the aforesaid acts and omission of accused persons is punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act. Accordingly a complaint was filed on January 16, 2003 in the Court of CJM, Bokaro. On the basis of materials available in the complaint petition, learned CJM vide his order dated January 16, 2003 took cognizance of the offence.

(3.) It is submitted by Sri Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel for the petitioners that the notice regarding the accident was received in the office of Inspector of Factories on October 16, 2002, therefore, it will be presumed that the Inspector had knowledge about the commission of offence on October 16, 2002 It is submitted that as per Section 106 of the Factories Act it is imperative for the Court to take cognizance within three months of the date on which alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of Inspector. It is submitted that it is settled law that three months, under Section 106 of Factories Act means 90 days calculated @ 30 days per month. It is further submitted that in the instant case, cognizance was taken by the CJM on January 16, 2003. It is submitted that admittedly January 16, 2003 is I beyond the period of 90 days from October 16, 2002. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned order is barred by limitation. It is next submitted that as per Section 92 of the aforesaid Act, occupier and manager of the Factory are liable to be punished for the offence committed under the Act. It is submitted that petitioner No. 3 is neither the manager nor the occupier of the factory and therefore no case is made out against him. Hence the cognizance order so far it relates to petitioner No. 3, is an abuse of the process of the Court. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained by this Court.