K. B. NAVADGI, J. ( 1 ) THESE criminal petitions are under Section 482 of the code of criminal procedure (the code for short ). These petitions are listed for admission. Learned senior standing counsel for the central government was served with the cbpy of the petition in each of these petitions. The matters were heard regarding admission. ( 2 ) SINCE the questions involved in these petitions are the same, these petitions are disposed of by this common order. The original order shall be kept in the record and proceedings in criminal petition No. 145 of 1989 and the copies thereof shall be retained in the record and proceedings of the remaining petitions. ( 3 ) FACTS in cr. P. No. 145 of 1989mahadevappa the petitioner has prayed to set aside the order dated 30-6-1988 made by the learned judicial magistrate first class, ii court, at mangalore, in c. c. No. 7897 of 1988, on his file and to quash the proceedings instituted against him in the said case. ( 4 ) THE labour enforcement officer (central), government ofindia - the respondent, lodged a complaint against the petitioner on 29-6-1988 alleging the contravention of Rule 21 (4-a) of the minimum wages (central) rules, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the rules of 1950 ). ( 5 ) THE respondent alleged in the complaint that he was the labour enforcement officer (central), mangalore and an inspector appointed under Section 19 of the minimum wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the act of 1948), that the petitioner is an employer within the meaning of Section 2 (e) of the act of 1948, that the assistant labour commissioner (central), mangalore, inspected the establishment of the petitioner, viz. , stone quarry at hathalgeri on 25-6-1987, that the stone "quarry carried on by the petitioner is a schedule employment under the Provisions of the act of 1948 and that the petitioner had not sent the annual return for the year ending 31-12-1987 in form iii so as to reach before 1-2-1988 as required under Rule 21 (4-a) of the rules of 1950 to the assistant labour commissioner (central), mangalore, who is an inspector appointed under the Provisions of the act of 1948 for the area. He further alleged that the assistant labour commissioner (central), mangalore, issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 4-4-1988 with acknowledgment due, that the petitioner received it on 7-4-1988 and that inspite of the receipt , of the show-cause notice, the petitioner did not submit the annual return. ( 6 ) THE learned magistrate took the complaint on his file inc. c. No. 7897 of 1988 on 30-6-1988, he took cognizance of the contravention alleged against the petitioner on the same day and directed summons to the petitioner making it, returnable by 30-9-1988. On 30-9-1988 having found the petitioner absent despite the service of summons, the learned magistrate directed issue of non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner. ( 7 ) IT is the order dated 30-6-1988 that is sought to be set as idein this petition. The petitioner also wants the proceedings instituted against him quashed. ( 8 ) FACTS in cr. P. No. 148 of 1989satyappa the petitioner has prayed to set aside the order dated 29-6-1988 made by the learned judicial magistrate first class, ii court, mangalore, in c. c. No. 7851 of 1988 on his file and to quash the proceedings instituted against him in the said case. ( 9 ) THE labour enforcement officer (central), government ofindia - the respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioner on 28-6-1988 alleging the contravention of Rule 21 (4-a) of the rules of 1950 punishable under Section 22-a of the act of 1948. ( 10 ) THE respondent alleged that the petitioner was running a stone quarry at hathalgeri, that it was a schedule employment under the Provisions of the act of 1948, that the petitioner was the employer within the meaning of Section 2 (e) of the said Act, that the assistant labour commissioner (central), mangalore inspected the establishment of the petitioner viz. , the stone quarry on 25-6-1987 and that the petitioner had not sent the annual return for the year ending 31-12-1987 in form iii so as to reach before 1-2-1988 to the assistant labour commissioner (central), mangalore. ( 11 ) THE respondent further alleged that the assistant labour commissioner (central), managalore, issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 4-4-1988 by registered post with acknowledgment due, that the petitioner received it on 7-4-1988 and that despite the opportunity given, the petitioner did not submit the annual return for the year. ( 11 ) THE respondent further alleged that the assistant labour commissioner (central), managalore, issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 4-4-1988 by registered post with acknowledgment due, that the petitioner received it on 7-4-1988 and that despite the opportunity given, the petitioner did not submit the annual return for the year. ( 12 ) THE learned magistrate took the complaint on his file inc. c. no. 7851 of 1988 on 29-6-1988 and after taking cognizance of the contravention alleged against the petitioner, directed summons making it returnable by 24-9-1988. ( 13 ) IT is this order that is sought to be set aside by the petitioner in this petition. As observed earlier, the petitioner wants the proceedings instituted against him quashed. ( 14 ) FACTS in cr. P. No. 178 of 1989pakeerappa the petitioner wants to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this court to get the order dated 30-6-1988 made by the learned judicial magistrate first class, ii court, mangalore, in c. c. No. 7896 of 1988 on his file, set aside and to quash the proceedings instituted against him in the said case. ( 15 ) THE petitioner runs a stone quarry at hathalgeri. The work carried on by him is a schedule employment under the Provisions of the act of 1948. The petitioner is an employer within the meaning of Section 2 (e) of the said act. ( 16 ) THE labour enforcement officer (central), government ofindia - the respondent, lodged a complaint against the petitioner on 28-6-1988 alleging the contravention of Rule 21 (4-a) of the rules of 1950. The respondent alleged that he was the labour enforcement officer (central), mangalore and an inspector appointed under Section 19 of the act of 1948. According to him, the petitioner had not sent the annual return for the year ending 31-12-1987 in form iii so as to reach before 1-2-1988 to the assistant labour commissioner (central) mangalore. He further alleged that the petitioner was issued with a show-cause notice dated 4-4-1988 by registered post acknowledgment due, that he (the petitioner) received the same on 7-4-1988 and that inspite of opportunity given to him, the petitioner did not submit the annual return. ( 17 ) THE learned magistrate took the complaint on his file in c. c. No. 7896 of 1988 on 30-6-1988. ( 17 ) THE learned magistrate took the complaint on his file in c. c. No. 7896 of 1988 on 30-6-1988. After taking cognizance of contravention alleged, he directed process against the petitioner making it returnable by 30-9-1988. ( 18 ) IT is this order the petitioner wants to be set aside and to quash the proceedings instituted against him. ( 19 ) FACTS in cr. P. No. 179 of 1989in this petition, somappa the petitioner has prayed to set aside the order dated 29-6-1988 made by the learned judicial magistrate first class, ii court, mangalore, in c. c. No. 7849 of 1988 and to quash the proceedings instituted against him in the said case. ( 20 ) THE petitioner runs a stone quarry at hathalgeri. The stone quarry carried on by the petitioner is a schedule employment under the Provisions of the act of 1948. The petitioner is an employer within the meaning of Section 2 (e) of the said act. ( 21 ) THE labour enforcement officer (central), government ofindia - the respondent, is an inspector appointed under Section 19 of the act of 1948. ( 22 ) THE respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioneron 28-6-1988 alleging that the petitioner by not submitting the annual return for the year ending 31-12-1987 in form iii so as to reach before 1-2-1988 to the assistant labour commissioner (central), mangalore, an inspector appointed under the Provisions of the act of 1948 and thereby committed contravention of Rule 21 (4-a) of the rules of 1950, punishable under Section 22-a of the act of 1948. ( 23 ) THE respondent alleged that the assistant labour commissioner (central), mangalore, having noticed the contravention, issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner dated 4-4-1988 and sent the same by registered post with acknowledgment due, that the petitioner received the show-cause notice on 7-4-1988 and that inspite of the opportunity afforded to him, the petitioner did not submit the return due. ( 24 ) THE learned magistrate took the complaint on his file inc. c. no. 7849 of 1988 on 29-6-1988 and after taking cognizance of the contravention he directed process making it returnable by 24-9-1988. It appears the petitioner inspite of being served with the summons remained absent on 24-9-1988. ( 24 ) THE learned magistrate took the complaint on his file inc. c. no. 7849 of 1988 on 29-6-1988 and after taking cognizance of the contravention he directed process making it returnable by 24-9-1988. It appears the petitioner inspite of being served with the summons remained absent on 24-9-1988. ( 25 ) IT is the order dated 29-6-1988 that the petitioner wants this court to set aside and to quash the proceedings instituted against him in c. c. No. 7849 of 1988. ( 26 ) FACTS in cr. P. No. 1456 of 1988in this petition, somappa the petitioner has prayed to set aside the order dated 6-7-1988 made by the learned judicial magistrate first class, ii court, mangalore in c. c. No. 8122 of 1988 and to quash the proceedings instituted against him in the said case. ( 27 ) A complaint came to be lodged against the petitioner bythe labour enforcement officer (central), government of india, on 5-7-1988 alleging the contravention of Rule 18 of the payment of wages (mines) rules, 1956 (rules of 1956 for short ). ( 28 ) THE respondent alleged in the complaint that the petitioner runs a stone quarry at hathalgeri, that he is an employer within the meaning of Section 3 of the payment of wages Act, 1936 (act 1936 for short), that the quarry is an industrial establishment as defined under clause (ii) (d) of Section 2 of the Act, 1936 and that on 25-6-1987 at the time of inspection, it was found that the petitioner had engaged 32 workers. ( 29 ) THE respondent has further alleged in the complaint that the petitioner had not sent the annual return for the year ending 31-12-1987 in form v so as to reach the regional labour commissioner (central), Bangalore, before 1-2-1988 with a copy to the inspector as required under Rule 18 of the rules of 1956. ( 30 ) THE respondent further alleged in the complaint that the assistant labour commissioner (central), mangalore, issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner on 4-4-1988 and sent the same by registered post with acknowledgment due, that inspite of the receipt of the show-cause notice, the petitioner did not submit the annual return. ( 31 ) THE learned magistrate took the complaint on his file inc. c. no. ( 31 ) THE learned magistrate took the complaint on his file inc. c. no. 8122 of 1988 on 6-7-1988 and issued summons to the petitioner after taking cognizance of the contravention alleged. ( 32 ) THIS order that is sought to be set aside and the proceedings instituted by the respondent by means of a complaint are sought to be quashed. ( 33 ) FACTS in cr. P. No. 138 of 1989in this petition mallappa the petitioner has prayed to set aside the order dated 6-7-1988 made by the learned magistrate first class, ii court, Bangalore, in c. c. No. 8121 of 1988 on his file and to quash the entire proceedings in the said case. ( 34 ) THE petitioner runs a stone quarry at hathalgeri. He is an employer within the meaning of Section 3 of the act of 1936 read with Rule 2 (g) of the rules of 1956. ( 35 ) THE petitioner as an employer was due to submit the annual return for the year ending 31-12-1987 in form v so as to reach the regional labour commissioner (central), Bangalore, before 1-2-1988 with a copy to the inspector as required under Rule 18 of the rules of 1956. ( 36 ) THE labour enforcement officer (central) Bangalore, alleging contravention of Rule 18 of the rules of 1956, lodged a complaint against the petitioner on 5-7-1988 with a request to punish him under Rule 22 of the rules of 1956. ( 37 ) THE respondent alleged in the complaint that on 25-6-1987 when the stone quarry was inspected, the petitioner was found having engaged 6 workers, that the quarry is an industrial establishment as defined under clause (ii) (d) of Section 2 of the act of 1936, that the petitioner inspite of the opportunity being given to him, by means of show-cause notice to submit the return, did not file the return inspite of being served with the show-cause notice. ( 38 ) THE learned magistrate took the complaint on his file inc. c. no. 8121 of 1988 and on 6-7-1988, after having taken cognizance of the contravention, he directed summons to the petitioner making it returnable by 28-10-1988. It appears the petitioner refused to receive the summons and therefore, the learned magistrate directed issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner. c. no. 8121 of 1988 and on 6-7-1988, after having taken cognizance of the contravention, he directed summons to the petitioner making it returnable by 28-10-1988. It appears the petitioner refused to receive the summons and therefore, the learned magistrate directed issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 6-7-1988 and wants the entire proceedings instituted against him quashed. ( 39 ) FACTS in cr. P. No. 146 of 1989in this petition under Section 482 of the code, ramappa the petitioner has prayed to set aside the order dated 6-7-1988 made by the learned judicial magistrate first class, ii court, mangalore, in c. c. No. 8119 of 1988 and to quash the entire proceedings instituted against him in the said case. ( 40 ) THE petitioner runs a stone quarry at hathalgeri. It is an industrial establishment as defined under clause (ii) (d) of Section 2 of the act of 1936. The petitioner is an employer within the meaning of Section 3 of the act of 1936 read with Rule 2 (g) of the rules of 1956. ( 41 ) THE labour enforcement officer (central), Bangalore, lodged a complaint against the petitioner on 5-7-1988 alleging that the petitioner had not sent the annual return for the year ending 31-12-1987 in form v so as to reach the regional labour commissioner (central), Bangalore, before 1-2-1988 with a copy to the inspector as required under Rule 18 of the rules of 1956 and that the petitioner having contravened the said Rule was liable for punishment under Rule 22 of the rules of 1956. ( 42 ) THE respondent alleged in the complaint that on 25-6-1987 when the quarry of the petitioner was inspected, it was found that the petitioner having engaged 8 workers. He further alleged in the complaint that the petitioner was asked by means of a show-cause notice to submit the due return and that the petitioner inspite of the receipt of the show-cause notice, failed to submit the return. ( 43 ) THE learned magistrate took the complaint on his file inc. c. no. 8119 of 1988 on 6-7-1988. After taking cognizance of the contravention, he directed the summons to the petitioner. It appears the petitioner refused to receive the summons and therefore, the learned magistrate directed issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner. ( 43 ) THE learned magistrate took the complaint on his file inc. c. no. 8119 of 1988 on 6-7-1988. After taking cognizance of the contravention, he directed the summons to the petitioner. It appears the petitioner refused to receive the summons and therefore, the learned magistrate directed issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner. ( 44 ) IT is this order dated 6-7-1988 the petitioner wants to beset aside. He also wants the entire proceedings instituted against him quashed. ( 45 ) FACTS in cr. P. No. 147 of 1989in this petition under Section 482 of the code, y. g. asundi the petitioner has prayed to set aside the order dated 6-7-1988 made by the learned judicial magistrate first class, ii court, mangalore, in c. c. No. 8120 of 1988 and to quash the entire proceedings instituted against him in the said case. ( 46 ) THE petitioner runs a stone quarry at hathalgeri which is an industrial establishment as defined in clause (ii) (d) of Section 2 of the act of 1936. He is an employer within the meaning of Section 3 of the said act read with Rule 2 (g) of the rules of 1956. The petitioner is under an obligation to comply with the Provisions of the act of 1936 and the rules of 1956. ( 47 ) THE labour enforcement officer (central), government of India - the respondent, having found that the petitioner had failed to comply with Rule 18 of the rules of 1956 by submitting the annual return for the year ending 31-12-1987 in form v so as to reach the regional labour commissioner (central), Bangalore, before 1-2-1988 with a copy to the inspector as required under Rule 18 of the rules of 1956, lodged a complaint against the petitioner on 5-7-1988. ( 48 ) THE respondent alleged in the complaint that on 25-6-1987 when the quarry run by the petitioner was inspected, the petitioner was found having engaged 6 workers. The petitioner being required to comply with the Provisions of the act of 1936 and rules of 1956 by contravening Rule 18 had rendered himself liable for punishment under Rule 22 of the rules of 1956. ( 49 ) THE learned magistrate took the complaint on his file inc. c. no. 8120 of 1988 on 6-7-1988. After taking cognizance of the contravention, he directed summons to the petitioner. ( 49 ) THE learned magistrate took the complaint on his file inc. c. no. 8120 of 1988 on 6-7-1988. After taking cognizance of the contravention, he directed summons to the petitioner. ( 50 ) IT is this order the petitioner wants to be set aside in this petition. He also wants the court to quash the entire proceedings instituted against him in the said case. ( 51 ) FACTS in cr. P. No. 150 of 1989sathyappa the petitioner in this petition under Section 482 of the code has prayed to set aside, the order dated 6-7-1988 made by the learned judicial magistrate first class, ii court, mangalore, in c. c. No. 8124 of 1988 and to quash the proceedings instituted against him in the said case. ( 52 ) THE petitioner runs a stone quarry at hathalgeri. The said quarry is an industrial establishment as defined in clause (ii) (d) of Section 2 of the act of 1936. The petitioner is an employer within the meaning of Section 3 of the said act read with Rule 2 (g) of the rules of 1956. ( 53 ) THE labour enforcement officer (central), government of india, mangalore, on 5-7-1988 lodged a complaint against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner had failed to submit the annual return for the year ending 31-12-1987 in form v so as to reach the regional labour commissioner (central), Bangalore, before 1-2-1988 with a copy to the inspector as required under Rule 18 of the rules of 1956 and thereby had rendered himself liable for punishment under Rule 22 of the rules of 1956. ( 54 ) THE respondent alleged in the complaint that on 25-6-1987 when the stone quarry run by the petitioner was inspected, the petitioner was found having engaged 7 workers. The petitioner was responsible for compliance with the Provisions of the act of 1936 and the rules of 1956. ( 55 ) THE respondent alleged in the complaint that the petitioner inspite of being asked to submit the annual return by means of show-cause notice dated 4-4-1988, failed to submit the return. ( 56 ) THE learned magistrate took the complaint on his file inc. c. no. 8124 of 1988 on 6-7-1988. After taking cognizance of the contravention he directed process to the petitioner making it returnable by 7-10-1988. ( 56 ) THE learned magistrate took the complaint on his file inc. c. no. 8124 of 1988 on 6-7-1988. After taking cognizance of the contravention he directed process to the petitioner making it returnable by 7-10-1988. It appears from the record that the petitioner refused to receive the summons and remained absent on 7-10-1988. The learned magistrate issued non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner. ( 57 ) THE petitioner wants the order dated 6-7-1988 to be seta side and the proceedings instituted against him quashed. ( 58 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner in each of the petitions contended that, the petitioner in each of the petitions runs a stone quarry at hathalgeri in gadag taluk, dharwad district, that the offence having taken place within the jurisdiction of the judicial magistrate first class, gadag, the complaint lodged against each of the petitioners in the court of the judicial magistrate first class, ii court, mangalore, was incompetent, that the learned magistrate, mangalore, having no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the contravention alleged against the petitioner in each of these petitions, the order made by him taking cognizance of the contravention and directing process is without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner in each of these petitions also contended that the contravention alleged against each of them being punishable only with fine, the cognizance taken beyond the prescribed period of limitation, i. e. , beyond six months from the date of the commission of the offence was illegal and therefore, unsustainable in law. According to him, in each of the cases, the offence took place on 31-12-1987 and the cognizance ought to have been taken within six months from the date of the commission of the offence. ( 59 ) AS against these contentions, learned senior standing counsel for the central government reading the Provisions of sections 177 and 179 of the code, submitted that, the judicial magistrate first class, mangalore, has jurisdiction to inquire into and try the contravention alleged against the petitioner in each of the petitions. In respect of the contention raised on the point of limitation, submitted that contention does not deserve any consideration. In respect of the contention raised on the point of limitation, submitted that contention does not deserve any consideration. ( 60 ) IN view of the contentions raised, the points that arise for consideration and determination are these: (1) whether the judicial magistrate first class at mangalore has jurisdiction to inquire into and try the contravention alleged against each of the petitioners in these petitions? (2) whether the prosecution launched against each of the petitioners in these petitions is barred by limitation? ( 61 ) HAVING examined the records and the relevant provision sbearing on the questions raised for consideration, it appears to me that there is no force in either of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The answers on both the questions have to be in favour of the respondent and against the petitioners in these petitions. ( 62 ) THERE is no dispute that the petitioners in criminal petitions nos. 145 of 1989, 148 of 1989, 178 of 1989 and 179 of 1989 are the owners of stone quarries at hathalgeri in gadag taluk of dharwad district. The work carried on by them are schedule employment under the Provisions of the act of 1948. They come within the definition of the employer within the meaning of Section 2 (e) of the act of 1948. ( 63 ) IT is clear from the record in each of the aforesaid four petitions that the petitioners failed to submit the annual returns for the year ending 31-12-1987 as required by Rule 21 (4-a) of the rules of 1950. The allegations made in each of the complaints is that the petitioner concerned failed to submit the annual return inspite of the show-cause notice issued to him calling upon him to submit the due annual return. ( 64 ) RULE 21 (4-a) of the rules of 1950 lays down that every employer shall send annually a return in form iii so as to reach the inspector not later than the 1st February following the end of the year to which it relates. In view of the aforesaid Rule, the petitioners in each of the four petitioners stated above were required to submit the annual return for the year ending 31-12-1987 in form iii so as to reach before 1-2-1988 to the assistant labour commissioner, mangalore - the inspector appointed under the act of 1948. In view of the aforesaid Rule, the petitioners in each of the four petitioners stated above were required to submit the annual return for the year ending 31-12-1987 in form iii so as to reach before 1-2-1988 to the assistant labour commissioner, mangalore - the inspector appointed under the act of 1948. ( 65 ) SEPTION 177 of the code provides that, every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. Section 179 of the code eontemplates that, when an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and as a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued. In criminal petitions nos. 145 of 1989, 148 of 1989, 178 of 1989 and 179 of 1989, the petitioners were required to submit the annual returns in form iii so as to reach before 1-2-1988 to the assistant labour commissioner, mangalore - inspector appointed under the act of 1948. In that view of the matter, the offence for non-compliance of the Rule 21 (4-a) is triable either at hathalgeri the place from where the annual returns had to be despatched that is at gadag, or at mangalore the place where it had to be received. Consequently, the conclusion inescapable is, the complaints filed before the learned magistrate, mangalore, within whose local jurisdiction the annual returns required to be submitted by the petitioners in the four petitions mentioned above had to be received, were competent and the learned magistrate, mangalore, has jurisdiction. ( 66 ) THE petitioners in criminal petition nos. 1456 of 1988, 138 of 1989, 146 of 1989, 147 of 1989 and 150 of 1989 are the owners of stone quarries situated at hathalgeri in gadag taluk or dharwad district. The stone quarries are the industrial establishments as defined in clause (ii) (d) of Section 2 of the act of 1936. They are the employers within the meaning of Section 3 of the act 1936 read with Rule 2 (g) of the rules of 1956. The stone quarries are the industrial establishments as defined in clause (ii) (d) of Section 2 of the act of 1936. They are the employers within the meaning of Section 3 of the act 1936 read with Rule 2 (g) of the rules of 1956. The petitioners were required to submit the annual returns for the year ending 31-12-1987 in form v so as to reach the regional labour commissioner (central), Bangalore before 1-2-1988 with copies to the inspector as required by Rule 18 of the rules of 1956. ( 67 ) RULE 18 provides:"every employer shall send a return in for m v so as to reach the regional labour commissioner not later than the first of February following the end of the year to which it relates endorsing simultaneously a copy thereof to the inspector having jurisdiction under the act over the mine. " ( 68 ) RULE 22 lays down:"whoever, being required under these rules, to maintain any register or records or to furnish any information or return fails to maintain such register or record or to furnish such information or return or fails to observe Provisions of any these rules shall, for each such offence, be punishable with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees. "we are not concerned here with the proviso to the said rule. ( 69 ) INDEED it is true the stone quarries run by the petitioners in the above stated five petitions are situated at hathalgeri in the limits of gadag taluk, but, having regard to the Provisions of sections 177 and 179 of the code and Rule 18 extracted earlier, it is difficult to uphold the contention of the petitioners that the judicial magistrate first class at mangalore had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints. The petitioners were required to send the annual returns for the year ending 31-12-1987 before 1-2-1988 to the regional labour commissioner (central) Bangalore, with copies to the inspector, mangalore. That being so, the offence for non-compliance of Rule 18 would be triable either by the judicial magistrate first class, gadag, within whose territorial jurisdiction the stone quarries are situated or by the metropolitan magistrate, Bangalore city or the judicial magistrate first class, mangalore, the two places where they had to be received. That being so, the offence for non-compliance of Rule 18 would be triable either by the judicial magistrate first class, gadag, within whose territorial jurisdiction the stone quarries are situated or by the metropolitan magistrate, Bangalore city or the judicial magistrate first class, mangalore, the two places where they had to be received. Consequently, the complaints lodged against the petitioners before the learned magistrate, mangalore, within whose jurisdiction the office of the inspector is situated, in which, the copies of the annual returns that were required to be submitted by the petitioners in these five petitions were to be received were validly instituted. When the annual returns of the petitioners did not reach the respondent-complainant at mangalore, the offence alleged against the petitioners in these five petitions was committed. The offence must be deemed to have been committed at mangalore. Hence the judicial magistrate first class at mangalore had jurisdiction to entertain the complaints. ( 70 ) THIS court in criminal petition No. 766 of 1983 disposed of on 30-1-1986 while dealing with the facts identical in criminal petitions nos. 1456 of 1988, 138 of 1989, 146 of 1989, 147 of 1989 and 150 of 1989 held that the judicial magistrate first class, chitradurga, where the office of the inspector was situated, in which the copy of the annual return required to be submitted under Rule 18 of the rules of 1956 was to be received, had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at jabalpur in criminal petition No. 537 of 1980 which dealt with the same question is also to the same effect. ( 71 ) IN the result, for the reasons stated above, negativing the contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners, i hold that the judicial magistrate first class at mangalore has the jurisdiction to entertain the complaints and inquire into and try the contraventions alleged against each of the petitioners in these petitions. ( 72 ) IN criminal petitions nos. 145 of 1989,148 of 1989,178 of 1989 and 179 of 1989, the contravention alleged against the petitioners therein is punishable under Section 22-a of the act of 1948. ( 72 ) IN criminal petitions nos. 145 of 1989,148 of 1989,178 of 1989 and 179 of 1989, the contravention alleged against the petitioners therein is punishable under Section 22-a of the act of 1948. ( 73 ) SECTION 22-a lays down:"any employer who contravenes any provision of this act or of any Rule or order made thereunder shall, if no other penalty is provided for such contravention by this Act, be punishable with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees. "having regard to the Provisions contained in Section 468 (2) of the code, it can be said that the period of limitation for prosecution in each of these four petitions was 6 months. ( 74 ) IN each of these four petitions, it appears cognizance was taken within six months from the date of offence. 74-a. As regards the question of limitation involved in criminal petitions nos. 1456 of 1988, 138 of 1989, 146 of 1989, 147 of 1989 and 150 of 1989 having regard to the Provisions contained in Rule 22 of the rules of 1956, the Rule which provides for punishment, it can be said that the period of limitation is six months. The petitioners in these five petitions were required to submit the annual returns for the year ending 31-12-1987. Excluding 31-12-1987 if the next date is taken as the date of the contravention alleged against the petitioners, the complaint lodged after the expiry of six months would be barred by limitation, but, we cannot ignore the fact that the annual returns required to be submitted by the petitioners in each of these five petitions were to reach the regional labour commissioner (central), Bangalore with copies to the inspector at mangalore. The respondent in eaeh of these five petitions is the complainant and he is the inspector appointed under Section 14 of the act of 1936. It can be said that he is the person aggrieved by the contravention alleged against the petitioners in these five criminal petitions. The material placed on record is sufficient to hold that the contravention came to the knowledge of the respondent (complainant) only after 1-2-1988 when he did not receive the copies of the annual returns from the petitioners. Till then the respondent cannot be said to have come to know of the commission of the offence or the contravention alleged against the petitioners in these five petitions. Till then the respondent cannot be said to have come to know of the commission of the offence or the contravention alleged against the petitioners in these five petitions. If excluding 1-2-1988 the period of six months is computed, it cannot but be held that the complaint lodged against the petitioners in these five petitions in the month of july, 1988 were perfectly within time. This reasoning equally applies to the plea of bar of limitation taken in criminal petition nos. 145 of 1989, 148 of 1989, 178 of 1989 and 179 of 1989 accepting for a moment the argument without so deciding, that cognizance was taken in the four cases, the subject-matter of the aforesaid four criminal petitions cognizance was taken beyond six months from the date of offence. ( 75 ) IN the result, for the reasons stated above, the contentionraised on the point of limitation has to be negatived. In the result, for the reasons aforesaid. I find these criminal petitions devoid of substance and merit. They deserve to be dismissed. They are accordingly dismissed. Retransmit the record and proceedings in c. c. No. 8122 of 1988, sent for, for reference and perusal from jmfc ii court, mangalore, to him with a copy of this order. --- *** --- .