Judgment : State has filed this appeal against the order of acquittal made by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Nagercoil in C.A.No.l6(A) of 1983. 2. The respondent-accused was charged for violation of Rules 48(2), 82(1) and 82(1)(b) read with Rule 82-A, Tamil Nadu Plantations Labour Rules, 1955 and read with Sec.36 of the Plantations Labour Act, 1951 in S.T.C.No. 107 of 1982 on the file of the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Nagercoil and he was convicted for both the offences and sentences to pay a fine of Rs. 100 under each count, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two weeks. Aggrieved with the conviction and sentence, the accused filed C.A.No.16(A) of 1983 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil, who allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused of all the charges. Against which the State has preferred this appeal. 3. The first count of the charges is that the Labourer Uravamma was employed by the respondent in the plantation of Pioneer Siphonia Estate, Azhagiapandiapuram, Palkulam Post, Kan-niyakumari District. Her residential house was found damaged and that it was not repaired inspite of the period of 4 months having been elapsed. This is a violation of Rule 48(2) of Tamil Nadu Plantations Labour Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rule), punishable under Sec.30 of the Plantations Labour Act, 1951 (here-inafter referred to as the Act). The other count of the charge is that the accused has failed to produce the Payment and Leave Register in Form No.14 when it was inspected by the Plantations Inspector, Nagercoil on 12. 1981. 4. The prosecution has examined P.W.1 and marked Exs.P.l to P-5. The accused examined one Shahul Ahmed. The accused pleaded not guilty and also pleaded that the prosecution has been launched beyond the period of limitation as provided under Sec.40 of the Act. After trial the accused was found guilty and he was convicted and sentenced as stated above. On appeal by the accused, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil C.A.No.l6(A) of 1983, he was acquitted. Hence the State appeal. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that the lower appellate court is wrong in acquitting the accused on the ground of limitation. According to him, the Inspector of Plantations inspected the estate on 12. 1981 for verifying whether the respondent-accused has complied with the order dated 19. 1981 but he found the same was not complied with. 5. The learned Public Prosecutor contended that the lower appellate court is wrong in acquitting the accused on the ground of limitation. According to him, the Inspector of Plantations inspected the estate on 12. 1981 for verifying whether the respondent-accused has complied with the order dated 19. 1981 but he found the same was not complied with. Hence the Inspector of plantations filed the complaint before the trial court on 2. 1982 that is within 6 months from the date of the earlier order dated 19. 1981. The learned Public Prosecutor also contended that the proviso to Sec.40 would apply to the facts of the case, since the order was made on 19. 1981 and the complaint was filed on 2. 1982 within a period of six months from the date. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent- r accused contended that the period of limitation has to be counted from the date of knowledge of the commission of the offence. According to him, P.W.1 the plantations Inspector came to know’ about the commission of the offences even on 19. 1981 as per Ex.P-1 notice dated 19. 1981, prima facie complaint to be made3 within two months from 19. 1981, but actually the complaint was filed only on 2. 1982. On this ground, he sought to sustain the judgment of the lower appellate court. 7. Sec.40 of the Plantations Labour Act reads as follows: “40. Limitation of prosecutions: No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act unless the complaint thereof has been made or is made within three months from the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of an Inspector: Provided that where an offence consists of disobeying a written order made by an Inspector, the complaint thereof may be made within six months of the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed.” I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor, since if that was the intention of the legislature by granting six months time from the date of the written order, the Inspector of Plantations could issue an order at any time, according to his whims and fancies and take 6 months time from that date to file a complaint. This would defeat the rights of the labourers employed in the plantations. This would defeat the rights of the labourers employed in the plantations. The first part of the section alone will apply to the facts of the case. When the Inspector of Plantations found the violations when he visited the estate on 19. 1981, he ought to have filed the complaint within three months from the date of his visit. But he had taken his own time and had filed the complaint only on 2. 1982 that is after a period of 4 months and 22 days. The lower appellate court has correctly interpreted the provisions of Sec.40 of the Act and found that the complaint was not filed within the period of 3 months from the date of knowledge. Hence, I concur with the findings of the lower appellate court when it allowed the appeal and acquitted the respondent. The appeal is dismissed.