Judgment Prashant Kumar, J. This application has been filed for quashing order dated 3.12.1999 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in F.A. Case No. 654 of 1999, whereby he took cognizance under Section 92 of Factory Act against petitioner. 2. It appears that Factory Inspector Dhanbad made inspection of M/s Loyabad, Cooking Bye-Products Recovery Plant, Loyabad, and thereafter filed complaint alleging therein that no written policy prepared by the management of factory for the health and safety for the workmen, which is violative of the provisions of the Section 7A of the Factory Act and Rule 62BH of Bihar Factory Rules 1950. 3. It appears that said complaint received in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, on 3.12.1999 and on the same day he took cognizance of the offence under Section 92 of the Factory Act. 4. It is submitted by Sri A.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner being a director of the company can not be prosecuted under Section 92 of the Factory Act, because he is not occupier within the meaning of Section 2 (n) of the Factory Act. It is submitted that the person who manage the affairs of factory is occupier, therefore he can only be prosecuted under Section 92 of the Factory Act. It is submitted that petitioner had not been appointed by Central Government as occupier of the factory, therefore order taking cognizance is bad. It is further submitted that order taking cognizance is also violative of Section 106 of the Factory Act. 5. On the other hand, Sri S. S. Prasad, learned Additional PP submits that petitioner has been appointed by Central Government as occupier, which manifest from Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit. Sri Prasad further submits that petitioner put his signature on Annexure-B as occupier of factory. Under the said circumstance, as per Section 92 of the Factory Act, petitioner can be prosecuted for violation of any of the provisions of the Factory Act and Rules framed thereunder. 6. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the record. Section 7-A of the Factory Act reads as under:- 7A. General duties of the occupier.- (Every occupier shall ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare of all workers while they are at work in the factory. 6. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the record. Section 7-A of the Factory Act reads as under:- 7A. General duties of the occupier.- (Every occupier shall ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare of all workers while they are at work in the factory. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), the matters to which such duty extends, shall include- (a) the provision and maintenance of plant and systems of work in the factory that are safe and without risks to health; (b) the arrangements in the factory for ensuring safety and absence of risks to health in connection with the use, handling, storage and transport of articles and substances; (c) the provision of such information, instruction, training and supervision as are necessary to ensure the health and safety of all workers at work; (d) the maintenance of all places of work in the factory in a condition that is safe and without risks to health and the provision and maintenance of such means of access to, and egress from, such places as are safe and without such risks; (e) the provision, maintenance or monitoring of such working environment in the factory for the workers that is safe, without risks to health and adequate as regards facilities and arrangements for their welfare at work. (3) Except in such cases as may be prescribed, every occupier shall prepare, and, as often as may be appropriate, revise, a written statement of his general policy with respect to the health and safety of the workers at work and the organisation and arrangements for the time being in force for carrying out that policy, and to bring the statement and any revision thereof to the notice of all the workers in such manner as may be prescribed.] Rule 62BH of Bihar Factory Rules reads as under:- 62 BH : Health and Safety policy.- (1) Occupier of every factory, except as provided for in sub-rule (2), shall prepare a written report of his policy in respect of health and safety of workers at work. (2) All Factory- (a) Covered under section 2(m) (i) but employing less than 50 workers; (b) covered under section 2(m) (ii) but employing less than 100 workers, are exempted from requirements of sub-rule (1): Provided that they are not covered in the First Schedule under Section 2 (c) or carrying out process or operations declared to be dangerous under section 87 of the Act. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (2), the Chief Inspector may require, the Occupiers of any of the Factory or class or description of Factory to comply with the requirements of sub-rule(1) if, in his opinion, it is expedient to do so. (4) The Health and Safety policy should contain or deal with : (a) declared intention and commitment of the top management to health, safety and environment and compliance with all the relevent statutory requirements; (b) organisational set up to carry out the declared policy clearly assigning the responsibility at different levels; and (c) arrangements for making the policy effective. (5) In particular, the policy should specify the following: (a) arrangements for involving the workers; (b) intention of taking into account the health and safety performance of individuals at different levels while considering their career advancement; (c) fixing the responsibility of the contractors, sub-contractors, transporters and other agencies entering the premises; (d) providing a resume of health and safety performance of the factory in its Annual Report; (e) relevant techniques and methods, such as safety, audit and risk assessment for periodical assessment of the status on health, safety and environment and taking all the remedical measures; (f) stating its intention to integrate health and safety in all decisions including those dealing with purchase of plant, equipment, machinery and material as well as selection and placement of personnel; (g) arrangement for informing, educating and training and retraining its own employees at different levels and the public, wherever required. (6) A copy of the declared Health and Safety Policy signed by the Occupier shall be made available to the Inspector having jurisdiction over the factory and to the Chief Inspector. (7) The Policy shall be made widely known by- (a) making copies available to all workers including contract workers, apprentices, transport workers, suppliers etc; (b) displaying copies of the policy at conspicuous places; and (c) any other means of communication; in a language understood by majority of workers. (7) The Policy shall be made widely known by- (a) making copies available to all workers including contract workers, apprentices, transport workers, suppliers etc; (b) displaying copies of the policy at conspicuous places; and (c) any other means of communication; in a language understood by majority of workers. (8) The Occupier shall revise the Safety Policy as often as may be appropriate, but it shall necessarily be revised under the following circumstances:- (a) Whenever any expansion or modification as approved by the Chief Inspector of Factory having implications of safety and health of persons at work is made; or (b) whenever new substance or articles are introduced duly approved by the Chief Inspector of Factory in the manufacturing process having implications on health and safety of persons exposed to such substances. 7. From perusal of complaint petition, I find that at the time of inspection of the factory premises no written policy prepared for health and safety of the workmen, which is in violation of Rule Section 7-A of Factory Act and Rule 62BH of Bihar Factory Rules 1950. Section 92 of the Factory Act provides that if there is contravention of any provisions of Factory Act, or any rules made thereunder, then occupier and manager of the Factory shall be held guilty of the offence. Thus as per Section 92 of the Factory Act occupier and manager of the factory can be prosecuted for violation of the provisions of Factory Act or Rules. 8. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that at the relevant time petitioner was not managing the affairs of the factory as its occupier, cannot be accepted, because as per proviso 3 of Section Section 2 (n) of Factory Act if the factory is owned or controlled by Central Government then the person appointed by Central Government to manage the affairs of the factory shall be deemed to be the occupier. In the instant case a counter-affidavit filed by opposite party no. 2. Annexure-A to the said counter-affidavit reveals that petitioner was appointed as occupier of M/s Loyabad, Coke Plant. It further appears that petitioner put his signature on Annexure-B as occupier of M/s Loyabad, Cooking Bye- Products Recovery Plant, Loyabad (factory in question). From Annexure-B it is clear that petitioner is the occupier of factory. 2. Annexure-A to the said counter-affidavit reveals that petitioner was appointed as occupier of M/s Loyabad, Coke Plant. It further appears that petitioner put his signature on Annexure-B as occupier of M/s Loyabad, Cooking Bye- Products Recovery Plant, Loyabad (factory in question). From Annexure-B it is clear that petitioner is the occupier of factory. Under the aforesaid circumstance, I find that contention of learned counsel for the petitioner has no leg to stand. 9. Now coming to the next contention that order taking cognizance is barred by law of limitation, it is worth mentioning that factory in question inspected on 3.9.1999. Thereafter petitioner was directed to remove irregularities vide letter no. 561 dated 10.09.1999. It appears that when said direction not complied, present complaint filed on 3.12.1999. Proviso to Section 106 of Factory Act provides that if the offence consists of disobeying of written order made by an inspector, the complaint petition can be filed within six months from the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed. As noticed above, in the instant case, factory inspector gave direction to the petitioner to remove irregularities within a certain period, but said direction not complied. Therefore, in this case, complaint can be filed within six months from the date on which said offence came in the knowledge of inspector. Under the aforesaid circumstance, there is no delay in filing of complaint petition. Accordingly, second contention raised by Sri A.K. Mehta is also rejected. 10. In view of the discussions made above, I find no merit in this application. Accordingly, same is dismissed.