JUDGMENT H.N. Kapoor, J. - The applicants are being prosecuted under Section 92 of , the Factories Act for committing certain irregulerities in Vishnu Pratap Sugar Works, Private Limited Khadda on the basis of a complaint filed by Shri R. B. Lal Inspector of Factories. The applicants had filed an application challenging the legality of the complaint as Shri R.B. Lal was the Inspector of Factories, Lucknow Region. The learned Magistrate had rejected that application by his order dated 17-9-1969 and ordered the case to proceed. The revision filed before the Sessions Judge too was rejected. 2. The only point to be decided in this revision is whether the complaint had been validly filed by Shri R. B. Lal and the case can proceed on the basis of that complaint. The complaint was filed on 20-5-1968. Cognizance of the case was taken on 23-5-1968. It is not disputed that Sri R.B. Lal was posted as Inspector of Factories, Incharge, Lucknow Region on 20-5-1968 while there ,was another Inspector Shri B.L. Shukla posted as Inspector of Factories, Incharge Gorakhpur Region. It, however, appears that Shri R. B. Lal was entrusted with the work of filing complaints and as such he fried the complaint on 20-5-1968. By way of regularisation a subsequent notification was issued on August 6, 1968 appointing Shri R.B. Lal as Inspector of Factories, Uttar Pradesh for the, whole of the State with effect from the date he took over charge. This notification is No. 3824 (TD)/XXXVI-A-2067 (TD) /68. Its copy was sent for publication in the next issue of the State Gazette. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that only the Chief inspector could be the Inspector of Factories for the whole of the State and such powers could not be conferred on any other Inspector. There is no force in this contention. The language of Section 8 of the Factories Act does not limit power of the State Government to appoint Inspectors for the whole of the State. This point was considered by a learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Mahabir Pd. v. State 1973 A. W. R. (H.C) 530. He took the view that it is possible to appoint Inspectors other than Chief Inspector also for the whole of the State of Uttar Pradesh. I respectfully agree with that view. 4. This point was considered by a learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Mahabir Pd. v. State 1973 A. W. R. (H.C) 530. He took the view that it is possible to appoint Inspectors other than Chief Inspector also for the whole of the State of Uttar Pradesh. I respectfully agree with that view. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants next argued that such powers could not have been conferred with retrospective effect and by conferring such powers with retrospective effect, the complaint filed by Shri R. B. Lal would not become valid. The learned Assistant Government Advocate has argued that retrospective effect can be given to procedural matters as well as administrative matters. He has relied upon the case of Ram Autar Pandey v. State, A.I.R. 1962 All. 328 F. B. in which it was held that the rules effecting Government servants can be given retrospective effect. That decision was approved by the Supreme Court in the case of B. S. Vadera v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1969 S. C. 118. On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the case of State of Mysore v. Padmanabhacharya A.I.R. 1966 S. C. 602. In that case it was held that the subsequent notification issued to the effect that persons retired during a certain period would be deemed to have been validly retired could not be considered to be a rule within the meaning of Art. 309 of the Constitution regulating Government service and as such that notification was held to be invalid. In the present case, Shri R.B. Lal was obviously exercising certain powers by virtue of his posting at Lucknow being headquarters. The subsequent notification issued was by way of abundant caution so that his acts may not be considered to be illegal. However, for purposes of this case, it is not necessary to give any finding on this point. 5. The learned Assistant Government Advocate has relied on Section 105 of the Factories Act, which reads as follows : "No Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act except on complaint by, or with the previous sanction in writing of, an Inspector." He has argued that this section does not provide that the Inspector must be of that particular Region. It may appear that even' a private person can file a complaint with the previous sanction of an Inspector. It can, therefore, be said that in case the administrative department had deputed some other Inspector for the purpose of filing complaints who was not the Inspector of that region but was the duly appointed Inspector of Factories, the complaint filed by such Inspector cannot be considered to be illegal and cognizance can be taken. Learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on Secs. 8(1) and 9 of the Factories Act, which read as follows : "8(1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint such persons as possess the prescribed qualifications to be Inspectors for the purposes of this Act and may assign to them such local limits as it may think fit". 9. Subject to any rules made in this behalf an Inspector may, within the local limits for which he is appointed - (a) enter with such assistants being persons in the services of the Government or any local or other public authority, as he thinks fit, any place which is used, or which he has reason to believe is used, as a factory. (b) make examination of the premises, plant and machinery, require the production of any prescribed register and any other document relating to the factory, and take on the spot or otherwise statement of any person which he may consider necessary for carrying out the purposes of this Act; (c) exercise such other powers as may be prescribed for carrying out the purposes of this Act: Provided that no person shall be compelled under this section to answer any question or give evidence tending to incriminate himself." He has argued that the combined effect of these two sections is that the Inspector of Factories to whom local limits have been assigned alone can carry out the purposes of this Act within the local limits and it would follow that he alone can file the complaint. I do not agree with this contention as there is no such limitation in Section 105 of the Factories Act. 6. It is significant that the original appointment of Shri R.B. Lal -was as an Inspector of Factories, Uttar Pradesh. The relevant notification Shram Kha Vibhag No. 3565(L) (iv) XXXVI-(B)-32/1957 dated October 31, 1960 is about his appointment. I do not agree with this contention as there is no such limitation in Section 105 of the Factories Act. 6. It is significant that the original appointment of Shri R.B. Lal -was as an Inspector of Factories, Uttar Pradesh. The relevant notification Shram Kha Vibhag No. 3565(L) (iv) XXXVI-(B)-32/1957 dated October 31, 1960 is about his appointment. It was published in Uttar Pradesh Gazette dated November 5, 1960 at page 1520 Part I. He could, therefore, function anywhere in Uttar Pradesh as Inspector of Factories and his acts cannot be considered to be illegal. It is a different matter that by posting at a particular place certain local limits were assigned to him for the administrative convenience. Many functions are to be performed by the Inspectors of Factories. The public has also to submit returns to him and obtain forms etc. from him. For this purpose no doubt local limits have got to be assigned so that there may be no confusion. But a complaint filed by an Inspector of Factories of another region when he is duly appointed as Inspector of Factories cannot be considered to be illegal within the meaning of Section 105 of the Factories Act. It can also be presumed that he had, done so under the directions of the if superior authorities who might have entrusted him with the work of filing complaints because he was posted at the head-quarters. No Gazette notification was necessary for the same as any Inspector of Factories of Uttar Pradesh could have been deputed to do such work. 7. In the result, there is no force in this revision. It is accordingly dismissed. The stay order dated 5-12-1970 is vacated.