ORDER By the Court.-In view of the office note notice Issued upon opposite party No. 2 seems to have been validly served. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that an accident between trailer and a jeep took place on 1.8.2010 within the premises of M/s. Tata Steel Growth Shop whereby one person namely. Tapan Banerjee died after receiving injuries in the said vehicular accident. An information of the said accident was given by the Manager of the Factory to the inspector of Factories on 18.8.2010, which was received by the Inspector of Factories on 19.8.2010 receiving such information. Inspector of Factories inspected the premises of M/s. Tata Steel Group Shop and took statement of some of the persons wherein one of the witnesses stated that at the time of accident, speed of the vehicle was 35 kilometer per hour but that statement according to the witness is based on his assumption whereas other witness namely Manoj Singh driver of the Trailer stated that he was never driving the vehicle beyond the stipulated seed of 16 kilometer per hour. In spite of that, a complaint was filed on 19.11.2010 which was registered as G.P case No. 122 of 2010 in which cognizance of the offence was taken on the same day under Section of the Factories Act by holding that the .petitioner of the factory by contravening the Rule 123 and also Rule 96 of the Factories Rules has committed offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act which order has been challenged in this application. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order taking cognizance being hit by Section 106 of the Factories Act is bad as complaint was filed on 91st day from the date when the complainant derived knowledge of the occurrence whereas should have been filed within 90 days as such the order taking cognizance is bad on this ground. 5. 5. As per the case of the petitioner the accident took place on 16.8.2010 in which one person namely Banerjee died after receiving injuries in the said vehicular accident took place in between the Trailor and a Jeep Information of such occurrence was given by the Manager on 18.8.2010 to the Inspector of Factories who received information in prescribed form on 19.8.2010 but the complainant did file the complaint on 19.11.2010 which would be the 91st day from the date on which complainant derived knowledge of the occurrence though in terms of Section 106 of the Factories Act. it should have been filed within 90 days. The said provision reads as follows : "106. Limitation of prosecution.-No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under tins 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: Provided that where the offence consists of disobeying a written or her made by an Inspector complaint thereof may be made within six months of the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed. Explanation.-For the purpose of this section- (a) In the case of a continuing offence. the period of limitation shall be computed with reference to every point of time during which the offence continues; (b) Where for the performance of any act time is granted or extended one. an application made by the occupier or Manager of a factory, the period of limitation shall be computed from the date on which the time so granted or extended expires. " 6. From perusal of the provision. it does appear that the complain is required to be made within three months either from the date of occurrence or from the date when the complainant derived knowledge of it and this three months is to be construed as 90 days in view of the decision rendered in a case of A.S. Poplai v. State of Bihar and another, 1989 PWR 83. Subsequently this Court has also held in a case of T. Mukherjee and another v. State of Jharkhand and another, 2006 (4) JCR 122 (Jhr) that the complaint should be lied within three months either from the date of commission of offence or from the date of deriving knowledge of the commission of the offence. 7. Subsequently this Court has also held in a case of T. Mukherjee and another v. State of Jharkhand and another, 2006 (4) JCR 122 (Jhr) that the complaint should be lied within three months either from the date of commission of offence or from the date of deriving knowledge of the commission of the offence. 7. Here in the instant case, even if the date of accident i.e. 16.8.2010 and the date 18.8.2010 on which written information of the accident was sent and also the date 9.8.2010 on which the complainant received that information is excluded still the lodgement of the case would be falling on 91st day from the date of deriving knowledge. In spite of that under Section 106 of the Factories Act. 8. Accordingly the order dated 19.11.2010 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Seraikella-Kharswan taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioner is hereby quashed. 9. In the result this application is allowed. Application allowed.