Judgment : This criminal appeal by the State represented by the Public Prosecutor has been filed against the judgment of the learned Seventh Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras in C.C.No. 11134 of 1976 acquitting the respondent-accused of an offence punishable under section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 read with section 6 of that Act and rule 3 (2) (b) of the Rules framed in exercise of the power conferred by section 6 to frame Rules. 2. The accused is stated to be a partner of Messrs. Lotus Offset Printers carrying on business at No. 88, Suryanarayana Chetty Street, Royapuram, Madras-13. On 24th February, 1976, Subbayya P.W.1, the Factories Inspector, II Circle, Madras, visited the premises bearing door No. 88, Suryanarayana Chetty Street, Royapuram, Madras-13, at 10-15 a.m. and found 12 persons working in the place where there was an offset printing press worked with the aid of a 78.4 hp. electric motor. But then P.W.1, found that the factory was being worked at a place in respect of which no plan had been approved by the Chief Inspector of Factories, as required by rule 3 (2) (b) of the Rules. Thereupon P.W.1, prepared the inspection report, Exhibit P-1, about what he found and about the factory being worked without an approved plan. Subsequently on 10th March, 1976, P.W.1 sent the show cause notice, Exhibit P-2, by registered post and received the acknowledgment, Exhibit P-3 dated 12th March, 1976. On 25th March, 1976 the accused sent a reply, Exhibit P-4, requesting time till 15th April, 1976, for submitting the blue prints on the ground that the factory was engaged in closing accounts. No blue prints were sent and on 21st May, 1976, the complaint was filed for an offence under section 6 read with rule 3 (2) (b) of the Rules punishable under section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948. 3. The accused pleaded not guilty when the charge was explained to him. The prosecution examined P.W.1 alone to prove its case. The personal appearance of the accused has been dispensed with; also his examination in respect of the materials appearing against him in the evidence was dispensed with under section 313 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. The learned Seventh Metropolitan Magistrate found that no sanctioned plan had been obtained from the Chief Inspector of Factories, as disclosed by Exhibits D-1 to D-7. 4. The learned Seventh Metropolitan Magistrate found that no sanctioned plan had been obtained from the Chief Inspector of Factories, as disclosed by Exhibits D-1 to D-7. He, however, found that P.W.1 or his predecessor-in-office had not taken any action since 1973, though P.W.1 was aware more than three months prior to the date on which the complaint was filed, of the factory being run in the premises and that the complaint is barred by limitation under section 106 of the factories Act, 1948. Accordingly he acquitted the accused. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the acquittal. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that Exhibits D-1 to D-7 do not show that the factory was being actually run and that there is no evidence whatsoever to show that either P.W.1, or his predecessor-in-office was aware of the factory being run prior to the date of inspection by P.W.I. The learned Advocate, therefore, submitted that the finding of the learned Seventh Metropolitan Magistrate that the prosecution is barred by section 106 of the Factories Act, 1948, is incorrect. 6. On the other hand it was submitte learned Counsel for the accused that P.W.1. was aware in 1974 itself of the factory being run without obtaining a sanctioned plan from the Chief Inspector of Factories and the prosecution is barred by section 106 of the Factories Act, 1948. Exhibit D-1 is the letter dated 2nd April,1973, of the Inspector of Factories addressed to the Occupier, Lotus Offset Printers, No. 88, S. N. Chetty Street, Royapuram, Madras-13 asking for certain particulars mentioned therein with reference to the occupier’s application dated 31st March, 1973 for registration of the factory and issue of licence. Exhibit D-2 dated 8th June, 1973, is the letter of the Inspector of Factories to the same occupier returning one copy of the plan received along with the letter dated 30th May,1973, from the occupier with the remarks mentioned in that letter. Exhibit D-3 dated 20th November, 1973, is the letter of the Inspector of Factories addressed to the same occupier returning the plans in triplicate received from the occupier and requesting him to retransmit those plans along with Form No. 1 in triplicate affixing a court-fee stamp of rupee one for approval. Exhibit D-4 shows the remittance of a sum of Rs. 100 by Lotus Offset Printers into the Treasury. Exhibit D-4 shows the remittance of a sum of Rs. 100 by Lotus Offset Printers into the Treasury. Exhibit D-5 is a copy of the plan. Exhibits D-6 and D-7 are signed by P.W.1. Exhibit D-6 dated 10th March, 1976 is a letter ofP.W.1. the Inspector of Factories, requesting the accused to send the site and detailed plans in triplicate, preferably in blue prints signed by the occupier and draftsman with his qualification immediately to his office. Exhibit D-7 dated 24th May, 1976, is the letter of P.W.1 to the accused saying that the accused should have deposited Rs. 200 as per the circular instead of Rs. 120 and requesting the accused to deposit the balance of Rs. 80 without delay. It is not possible to state from these documents Exhibit D-1 to D-7 that the Factories Department was aware of the accused running any factory in the premises without a licence. Exhibits D-1 to D-7 are only correspondence relating to the request of Lotus Offset Printers for approval of the site and detailed plans relating to the factory. In Exhibit P-4 dated 25th March, 1976 Lotus Offset Printers had requested P.W.1 to grant time upto 15th April, 1976, for submitting the blue prints on the ground that they were engaged at that time in the closing of accounts. Therefore, it is clear that even on 25th March, 1976, the accused had not obtained any sanctioned plan for locating the factory in premises No. 88, Suryanarayana Chetty Street, Royapuram, Madras-13. The factory was functioning on the date of P.W.1 inspection. 7. Section 6 of the Factories Act, 1948, enables the State Government to make rules inter alia requiring previous permission in writing of the State Government or the Chief Inspector to be obtained for the site on which the factory is to be situated and for construction or extension of any factory or class or description of factories. 7. Section 6 of the Factories Act, 1948, enables the State Government to make rules inter alia requiring previous permission in writing of the State Government or the Chief Inspector to be obtained for the site on which the factory is to be situated and for construction or extension of any factory or class or description of factories. Rule 3 (1) of the rules framed in exercise of the powers conferred under section 6 of the Act states that no site shall be used for the location of a factory nor shall any building be constructed, reconstructed or extended for use as a factory, nor shall any manufacturing process be carried or in any building, constructed, reconstructed or extended without the previous permission in writing of the Chief Inspector, and that the previous permission of the Chief Inspector shall also be obtained for the installation of additional machinery or for the installation of prime movers exceeding the horse-power already installed in the factory. Rule 3 (2) (b) lays down that application for such permission shall be made in Form No. 1 in triplicate and shall accompany plans in triplicate drawn to scale showing the site of the factory and immediate surroundings including adjacent buildings and other structures, roads, drains and the like. Section 92 of the Act lays down that save as is otherwise expressly provided in the Act and subject to the provisions of section 93, if in or in respect of any factory there is any contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or of any Rules made thereunder etc., the occupier and manager of the factory shall each be guilty of an offence and punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees or with both, and if the contravention is continued after conviction, with a further fine which may extend to seventy five rupees for each day on which the contravention is so continued. 8. The document referred to above show that the accused had contravened the requirements of rule 3 (2) (b) of the Rules and that; the offence committed by him in punishable under section 92 of the Act. 9. 8. The document referred to above show that the accused had contravened the requirements of rule 3 (2) (b) of the Rules and that; the offence committed by him in punishable under section 92 of the Act. 9. Section 106 of the Act lays down that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under the 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. A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held in In re., V.S. Mentha and others1, that the three months referred to in section 106 of the Factories Act mean three calendar months after the commission of the offence came to the knowledge of the Inspector and not 90 days. Even if the period is construed as 90 days, the complaint in this case had been filed within that period. 10. The point for consideration is whether P.W.1 or the Department was aware more than three months prior to the date of filing of the complaint in this case on 21st May, 1976, of the accused running the factory without obtaining a sanctioned plan of the site, etc. "The learned Advocate for the Government took me through the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.1 has stated in his evidence that he was not aware of the factory being run without the sanctioned plan from 1973, that he was Inspector of II Circle from November, 1974, and he was written Exhibits D-6 and D-7 dated 10th March, 1976 and 24th May, 1976, and that when he was working in II Circle he came to know that the factory was being run without obtaining any sanctioned plan. He was in II Circle from November, 1974, and he came to be Inspector of Factories, I Circle, from 1st April, 1976. The date of his inspection was 24th February, 1976, which falls within the period in which he was Inspector of Factories, II Circle, from November, 1974 to 31st March, 1976. Therefore, from the mere fact that P.W.1, has stated in his evidence that when he was in II Circle he came to know of the factory being run without obtaining a sanctioned plan, it could not be stated that he was aware of the Factory being run without a sanctioned plan from 1973. Therefore, from the mere fact that P.W.1, has stated in his evidence that when he was in II Circle he came to know of the factory being run without obtaining a sanctioned plan, it could not be stated that he was aware of the Factory being run without a sanctioned plan from 1973. There is, therefore, nothing in the evidence of P.W. 1. to show that he was aware of the factory being run without the necessary sanctioned plan for more than three months prior to the date of his complaint. The evidence clearly shows that he came to know for the first time only on 24th February, 1976 of the factory being run without the necessary sanctioned plan in respect of the site, etc. and that the complaint in this case had been filed on 21st May, 1976, within three months from that date. In these I circumstances it is not possible to agree with the learned Seventh Metropolitan Magistrate that either the Department or P.W.1, or his predecessor-in-office was aware more than three months prior to the date of the complaint filed by P.W.1 in this case of the accused running the factory at the premises without obtaining a sanctioned plan in respect of the sites etc., the conclusion of the learned VIIth Metropolitan Magistrate that the department and P.W.1 or his predecessor-in-office were aware more than 3 months prior to the date of the complaint of the factory being run without the necessary sanctioned plan is baseless and calls for interference. 11. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the accused is convicted of the offence with which he was charged and he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000. In default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Time for payment one month. Appeal allowed.