Research › Browse › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

1957 DIGILAW 370 (ALL)

Ranjit Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh

1957-10-29

N.U.BEG

body1957
JUDGMENT N.U. Beg, J. - This is a revision by one Ranjit Singh. He has been convicted under Section 27 of the Uttar Pradesh Shops and Commercial Establishments Act (Act no. XXII of 1947), and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. In case of default, he is ordered to undergo three weeks simple imprisonment. 2. The applicant was the Manager of a Firm styled as Ganesh Das Ram Gopal. One Bansgopal Mathur was an employee of the Firm. The charge against the applicant was that he had failed to pay the wages of Bansgopal Mathur within seven days from the time when the wages of die said employee had fallen due, thereby contravening the provisions of Section 16 of the U. P. Shops and Commercial Establishments Act. He was found guilty of the said charge and sentenced as above. On a revision being filed before the second additional Sessions Judge, Agra, Sri Jagdish Sharma, his conviction and sentence was upheld and the revision application was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the said order he has filed this revision in the High Court. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on Section 29 of the U. P. Shops and Commercial Establishments Act. 1947 (U. P. Act XXII of 1947). Section 29 runs as follows: - "No court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act or any rule or order made thereunder except on a complaint in warting of the facts constituting such offence made within six months of the date on which the offence is said to have been committed." 4. It is argued that in the present case the complaint constituting the offence was made more than six months after the alleged date of the commission of the offence. The court, therefore, should not have taken cognizance of the case on a complaint filed beyond the prescribed period, and any proceedings based thereon would, therefore, be bad in law. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, I am of opinion that this revision must be allowed. 5. The charge against the applicant was that he had failed to pay the wages of Bansgopal Mathur for the month of May 1954, and thereby he had contravened Section 16 of the U. P. Shops and Commercial Establishment Act. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, I am of opinion that this revision must be allowed. 5. The charge against the applicant was that he had failed to pay the wages of Bansgopal Mathur for the month of May 1954, and thereby he had contravened Section 16 of the U. P. Shops and Commercial Establishment Act. Section 16 provides as follows : "Every employer shall pay the wages of his employee before the expiry of the seventh day after the wages are due." (Proviso not relevant.) 6. Under Section 16, therefore, it was incumbent of the applicant to pay the wages of Bansgopal Mathur within seven days after the end of May 1954. If, therefore, the applicant failed to pay the wages before the expiry of the seventh day, he would be contravening Section 16 of the said Act. The applicant would, therefore, be deemed to have committed the offence on the 7th of June 1954. The complaint in the present case was admittedly filed on the 17th of December 1954. This was obviously after the expiry of the period of six months from the date of the commission of offence which, in my opinion, would be the 7th of June 1954. The lower court did not accept this argument as it was of opinion that the Inspector had visited the establishment in the first week of December 1954, and the complaint having been filed on the 17th December 1954, it was within time. According to the view taken by the trial court, the time would run from the date of inspection. I am unable to accept this view. Under Section 28 of the U. P. Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, the period of six months runs not from the date of the detection of the offence but from the date of the alleged commission of the offence. In the present case the offence was committed on the 7th of June 1954. Under Section 29 of the U. P. Shops and Commercial Establishments Act the relevant date for computing the period of-limitation is "the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed" and not the date on which the offence is said to have been detected. Under Section 29 of the U. P. Shops and Commercial Establishments Act the relevant date for computing the period of-limitation is "the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed" and not the date on which the offence is said to have been detected. A complaint filed after the expiry of a period of six months from the date of the commission of the offence cannot be entertained by the Court and must be dismissed. In my opinion, the view taken by the lower court is clearly wrong, and must be set aside. 7. For the above reasons, I am of opinion that the conviction of the applicant was against law. I would, therefore, allow this revision, set aside the conviction and sentence of the applicant and order that the fine, if paid, shall be refunded.