Honble PALSHIKAR, J.–This revision petition is directed against the order dt. 13th October, 1997 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sumerpur in criminal case No. 298/91 whereby the application filed on behalf of the petitioner for dropping the proceedings was dismissed and the order by which charge under Sec. 92 of the Factories Act was framed. (2). Facts necessary for adjudication of this revision petition stated briefly are that on 8th April, 1991 at about 6 am there was a quarrel between two employee of Laxmi Industries of which the applicant is a proprietor. In this quarrel, Ganpat Singh met with accidental death by falling from the roof of the factory. The matter was reported to the Factories Inspector by the Company on 10.4.91 and the factory was thereafter inspected and a complaint was filed against the petitioner on 25.7.91, the same was pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sumerpur and by his order dated 24.7.96 he dropped the proceedings and discharged the accused following the judgment of the Supreme Court in common causes case. Thereafter on the application of the Inspector, Factories Boilers the matter was taken on record by order dated 21.2.97 and by an order dated 13.10.97 the application of the petitioner for dropping the proceedings was dismissed and charges were framed by order dated 15.11.97, which action is challenged in this revision petition. (3). The revision petition has to be allowed as the entire action of the learned Magistrate is without jurisdiction. There are no powers of review given to the Judicial Magistrate, First class by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The learned Judge could not therefore review the earlier order of dropping the proceedings in light of the common causes case. Even if it is assumed that such powers exist in the present case, the learned Judge could not take cognizance of the matter in view of the specified power provided by Section 106 of the Factories Act. It is established on record that the occurrence took place on 8.4.91 and was reported on 10.4.91 and the Factories Inspector, inspected the factory on 16th 17th April, 1991, therefore the inspector of factory had knowledge of occurrence and the incident latest by 17.4.91. It is established on record that the occurrence took place on 8.4.91 and was reported on 10.4.91 and the Factories Inspector, inspected the factory on 16th 17th April, 1991, therefore the inspector of factory had knowledge of occurrence and the incident latest by 17.4.91. Section 106 of the Factories Act provides that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under the Factories Act, unless complaint is made thereof within three months of which the alleged offence came to the knowledge of the Inspector. In this case admittedly the knowledge was acquired by the Inspector latest by 17.4.19 and therefore the complaint was filed on 26.7.19. Thus it was beyond the period of three months prescribed by Section 106 of the Factories Act. The learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction therefore to take cognizance in this case after 17.7.19. Taking any view of the matter therefore, it is not permissible to continue these proceedings before the learned Magistrate. (4). In the result the revision petition succeeds and is allowed. Proceedings in criminal case No.298/91 are hereby quashed and the accused is discharged.