JUDGMENT - S.M. Hajarnavis, J.:---This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in which the petitioners challenge the conviction and sentence imposed on them under section 52(f) of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act (hereinafter called as the "Act") by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sindkheda, and affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhulia. The applicants and one Shantilal. Hastimal Jain trade in the name and style of "Jain Cloth Centre" within the Municipal limits of Sindkheda. The shop is registered under the Act. On 15th April, 1971, Shop Inspector, appointed under the Act, visited the shop of the applicants and he noticed that an employee Dagdulal Kisanlal was marked on "leave" for a period from 27-6-1970 to 2-7-1970 in the Muster Roll but that leave was not entered in the register known as "M" Form Register maintained under the Act. The Inspector, therefore, made an endorsement in that register and also in the issue book. On 7th May, 1971, he served a notice on the applicants for the breach committed by them and thereafter filed a complaint on 29th June, 1971 In the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sindkheda for the breach committed by the petitioners. The Magistrate issued process against the petitioners and their other partner for the offence punishable under section 52(f) of the Act. The applicants and the said Shantilal denied to have committed any breach and claimed to be tried. The complainant led the evidence. The accused were also examined by the prosecution under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and after considering all the material that was placed before, him, the Magistrate came to the conclusion that the applicants have not made entries regarding leave of Dagdulal Kisanlal for the period from 27-6-1970 to 2-7-1970 in the M Form Register and have, therefore, committed a breach of Rule 20(9) of the Rules framed under the Act. He, therefore, convicted the applicants for offence punishable under section 52(f) of the Act. He however, acquitted Shantilal. Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered by the Judicial Magistrate, the petitioners filed an application for revision before the Sessions Court which was heard by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhulia. He, therefore, convicted the applicants for offence punishable under section 52(f) of the Act. He however, acquitted Shantilal. Being aggrieved by the judgment delivered by the Judicial Magistrate, the petitioners filed an application for revision before the Sessions Court which was heard by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhulia. The only point that was urged before the Additional Sessions Judge was that the complaint was barred by time in-as-much as this Inspector has inspected the shop earlier on 27th September, 1970 and 20th October, 1970 and that he had come to know that the entries were not taken in the M Form Register and it was not correct for the Magistrate to hold that it was on 15th April, 1971 the complainant came to know for the first time about the entry not being taken in the M Form Register. The applicants, therefore, urged that the complaint was not filed within 3 months from the date on which the alleged commission of offence came to the knowledge of the Inspector. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing the parties, negative the contention of the petitioners and dismissed the application for revision. It is against this judgment that the present petition had been filed. Section 61 of the Act reads :--- "No Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act or any rule or order made thereunder, unless complaint thereof is made within three months form the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of an Inspector." Therefore, there cannot be any dispute that if the Inspector had come to know that the entries regarding the leave availed by Dagdulal of the period from 27-6-1970 to 3-7-1970 had not been taken in the "M" From Register when he inspected the shop earlier on 27th September, 1970 and 20th October, 1970, then the complaint would be barred by section 61 of the Act. It is true that the Inspector had stated in his Examination-in-chief that he come to know for the first time on 15th April, 1971 that the entries regarding the leave were not taken on "M" Form Register, but in his cross-examination he has in terms admitted that he had inspected the "M" Form Register pertaining to the leave availed by Dagdulal on 2nd September, 1970, he must have checked it with the Muster Roll. The entries in the Musters Roll was upto-date on that date. If the petitioners had not taken the entries in the "M" Form Register, the Inspector ought to have known during the inspection on 27th September, 1970 that those entries were not taken in the "M" Form Register. It is not the Case that the entries were made and then subsequently scored off. Both the courts below were not, therefore, right in holding that the Inspector had come to know for the first time on 15th April, 1971 that the entries about the leave that was availed by Dagdulal during the period from 27-6-1979 to 2-7-1970 were not taken in the "M" Form Register. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt that the Inspector if he had really checked the Register must have come to know on 27th September, 1970 that the entries were not taken in "M" Form Register. The complaint filed on 29th June, 1971 is definitely filed after the expiry of 3 months from the date on which the alleged commission of offence came to the knowledge of the Inspector. The conviction and the sentence imposed on the petitioners are, therefore, liable to be quashed. In the result, the petition is allowed and the rule is made absolute. The conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioners by the courts below are set aside. The fine, if paid, be refunded to the petitioners. -----