Ravindra Pal Singh vs State Of Jharkhand And Others

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J

Status report is on the record, which suggests that the matter is pending for appearance.

Heard Ms. Ahana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the State.

This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with C/2 Case No.406 of 2012 including the order dated 29.08.2012 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, whereby, he has been pleased to take cognizance against the petitioner for an offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act, pending in the court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur.

On the basis of a prosecution report filed by the Factory Inspector, the complaint case has been filed alleging therein that on 06.04.2012 an accident took place with respect to which a report was submitted by the Management in Form 17(A). In the course of enquiry, on the basis of the said information, an inspection was made on 17.04.2012 and it was found that an accident took place while the deceased workman was working in a pit which was dug around the boundary wall measuring 5 metre x 5 metre and having depth of 3.5 meter. He was working without ensuring any side support and in course thereof, 500 ton and 160 ton of power press machine was also working due to which there was vibration in and around the land causing land slide in which the deceased died. It was further alleged that there has been violation of Section 55(A)(2) of the Factories Rules and accordingly the prosecution report was filed. On the basis of the prosecution report, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur has been pleased to take cognizance against the petitioner under Section 92 of the Factories Act.

Ms. Ahana, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accident took place on 06.04.2012, whereas, the prosecution report was filed on 21.08.2012. She draws attention of the Court to Section 106 of the Factories Act and submits that in view of the said provision, the case was required to be filed within 3 months, whereas, it has been filed on 29.08.2012 i.e. after the said period. She further submits that even no petition for condoning the delay has been filed. On these grounds, she submits that entire criminal proceeding is bad in law.

On the other hand, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the State submits that the occurrence is there and that is why the report was filed and the learned court has taken cognizance. He submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order.

In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the only question is required to be considered by this Court in view of Section 106 of the Factories Act, which prescribes the period of limitation for three months for filing the complaint under Section 92 of the Factories Act from the date of occurrence, it is correct or not. It appears that the occurrence supposed to be taken place on 06.04.2012 and the prosecution report was filed on 29.08.2012. The company has already furnished the information under statutory Form 17(A). Thus, information was there to the Factory Inspector about the accident.

For ready reference, Section 106 of the Factories Act reads as under:

“106. Limitation of prosecutions.—No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this 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 an Inspector.

Provided that where the offence consists of disobeying a written order made by an Inspector, complaint thereof may be made within six months of the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed.

(a) in the case of a continuing offence, the period of limitation shall be computed with reference to every point of time during which the offence continues;

(b) where for the performance of any act time is granted or extended on an application made by the occupier or manager of a factory, the period of limitation shall be computed from the date on which the time so granted or extended expired.”

On perusal of the complaint petition, it is crystal clear that it was in the knowledge of the Factory Inspector that the occurrence took place on 06.04.2012 and the prosecution report was filed on 21.08.2012 and the cognizance under Section 92 of the Factories Act was taken against the petitioner.

On perusal of Section 106 of the Factories Act (as quoted herein above), it is also crystal clear that the law with regard to filing of the complaint under the Factories Act is within a period of three months from the date of commission of the offence or from the date of knowledge of the occurrence.

In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and analysis, the entire criminal proceedings in connection with C/2 Case No.406 of 2012 including the order dated 29.08.2012, pending in the court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur is, hereby, quashed.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed and disposed of.

Interim order, if any granted by this Court, stands vacated.