JUDGMENT : Barman, J. - Owner, Agent and Manager of Dhaurakhaman Graphite Mine at Titilagarh which was opened on October 24, 1960 were charged u/s 73 of the Mines Act, 1952 for contravention of Rules 30, 33 and 44 of the Mines Rules, 1955 for not providing drinking water in the mine, latrines on the surface of the mine and First Aid station at the mine. 2. The offence was detected by the Mines Inspector on February 4, 1961. The accused-Respondents pleaded guilty. The owner of the mine who is an old man pleaded that he had been instructing his Agent anti Mine Manager to carry out the works in a workmanlike manner following all the Rules and Regulations as laid down by the Government and remedy the violations pointed out by the Inspector of Mines without delay; that these violations for which he was charged were never brought to his notice as he was almost leading a retired life entrusting the works to his Agent. The Agent and the Manager while pleading guilty sought to justify their action as pleaded in their statement u/s 364, Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. The learned Magistrate acquitted all the accused-Respondents on the ground of inordinate delay in taking cognizance of the offence. The reasoning on which he acquitted them is this: It is rather unfortunate that though the prosecution report according to the Public Prosecutor appears to have been despatched from the Regional Inspector of Mines, Ramgarh Inspection Region, Dhanbad in July, 1961 to D.M., Bolangir, no action was taken in the D.M?s office from July, 19th to 13th September, 1962 for above one year 2 months. Though the prosecution report was received in S.D.M?s office at Patnagarh on 14-9-1962, no action has been taken before the S.D.M., Patnagarh from 14-9-1962 to 18-12-1962. Both the officers are responsible for this inordinate delay which was responsible and thus come under the purview of Section 79 of the Mins Act, which vitiates the whole case according to the contention of the defence as Section 79 is mandatory regarding limitation, which cannot be overlooked. Thus although the accused-Respondents pleaded guilty, they were acquitted on the ground that the cognizance was not taken within time. 4. Thus although the accused-Respondents pleaded guilty, they were acquitted on the ground that the cognizance was not taken within time. 4. Section 79 of the Mines Act so far as relevant is this: No Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act, unless con plaint thereof has been made: (i) within six months of the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed, or (ii) within six months of the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of the Inspector, or The offence was detected by the Mines Inspector on February 4, 1961. It is within six months from that time that on July 19, 1961 the Mines Inspector forwarded the Prosecution Report to the District Magistrate, Bolangir. Thus the complaint was made within six months as required by law. There was no delay in the making of the complaint. It is true that from the order-sheet of the Magistrate?s Court Record it appears that cognizance was not taken against the accused persons until December 18, 1962. It is therefore the Court?s delay in taking cognizance of the offence. What Section 79 requires is that the complaint must be made within six months. In the present case the complaint was made within time. In my opinion on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Section 79 is not attracted. 5. This my view is further supported by the fact that u/s 190, Code of Criminal Procedure the District Magistrate to whom the Mines Inspector had forwarded the Prosecution Report with a request to prosecute at his instance was himself competent to take cognizance of the offence upon receiving the complaint of facts which constitute such offence as contained in the said Prosecution Report or upon information received from the Mines Inspector that such an offence has been committed. Thus once a complaint has been made within six months no time-limit has been fixed for taking cognizance. ?Complaint? as I defined in Section 4(1)(h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure means the allegation made orally or in writing to the Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some pardon, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence. There is no doubt that if such a complaint is made beyond six months no Court can take cognizance of the offence under the Mines Act. There is no doubt that if such a complaint is made beyond six months no Court can take cognizance of the offence under the Mines Act. 6. In this view of the position in law the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate cannot be sustained. As regards sentence, there are indeed certain extenuating circumstances. Although the Agent and Manager sought to justify their action, the owner of the mine frankly admitted the position. He is an old retired gentleman who had left the management of the mine to his Agent and Manager and in fact he was unable to attend Court. The owner frankly pleaded that the contravention of the Mines Rules had not been brought to his notice. It appears that soon after the detection of the contravention of the Rules, they had subsequently been complied with as appears from a letter of the authorised agent of the owner of the mine to the Regional Inspector of Mines (Ext. 9) stating that drinking water is being supplied sufficiently and adequate number of surface latrines and urinals and First Aid stations are being provided. 7. In the result, therefore, the accused-Respondents are found to have contravened Rules 30, 33 and 40 of the Mines Rules, 1955. In view of the extenuating circumstances the owner of the mine is to pay a nominal fine of Rs. 25/-. The Agent and Manager of the mine are to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- each. The Government Appeal is allowed Appeal allowed. Final Result : Allowed