Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 114 (JHR)

Girish Prasad Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2015-01-27

PRASHANT KUMAR

body2015
Order This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.12.2013, passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat in C 3/13, whereby and whereunder, he took cognizance of the offences under Sections 92 and 96(A) of the Factories Act against the petitioner. 2. It appears that complainant, Factory Inspector Bokaro Circle No. 2, made inspection in the factory premises of the petitioner on 17.08.2013 and found certain irregularities, which are violative of Sections 41(C), 52, 53, 54, 59, 62 NH,62 OH of the Factories Act, Rules 84 and 103 (A) of the Jharkhand Factories Rules. It further appears that after the said inspection, vide letter contained in memo No. 274 dated 23.08.2013, the Factory Inspector directed the petitioner to remove all the irregularities within seven days from the date of the said letter and inform him. It appears that thereafter present complaint filed by the complainant on 16.12.2013. On the basis of said complaint, the learned S.D.J.M. Vide order dated 20.12.2013 took cognizance of the offences stated above. 3. It is submitted by Sri Raj Nandan Sahay, learned counsel for the petitioner that the order by which the learned S.D.J.M. took cognizance of the offence is barred by law of limitation. It is submitted that Section 106 of the Factories Act put an embargo on the court from taking cognizance unless the complaint filed within three months from the date on which the commission of the offences came to the knowledge of an Inspector. It is submitted that since the offences enumerated in the complaint petition came to the knowledge of Inspector on 17.08.2013 and complaint filed on 16.12.2013 i.e. after three months, therefore the order of the court is illegal. 4. On the other hand Sri P.K. Sahay, learned Additional PP submits that in the instant case complaint is filed within time. He submits that proviso to Section 106 of the Factories Act laid down that if any order made by an Inspector and the said order has not been obeyed, then in that case, complaint can be filed within six months from the date on which offence is alleged to have committed. He submits that proviso to Section 106 of the Factories Act laid down that if any order made by an Inspector and the said order has not been obeyed, then in that case, complaint can be filed within six months from the date on which offence is alleged to have committed. It is submitted that in the instant case after the inspection, Factory Inspector gave direction to the petitioner vide his letter contained in memo No. 274 dated 23.08.2013 for removing all the irregularities found in the factory premises of petitioner within seven days. It is further submitted that said irregularities had not been removed within seven days, as directed by the Inspector, therefore the complaint petition can be filed within six months from the date of knowledge of the order. Hence the order of the learned court below does not require any interference by this Court. 5. Sri Raj Nandan Sahay submits that petitioner had informed the Factory Inspector vide Annexure-3/1 that there is no irregularity in the factory. Accordingly, he submits that no offence made out against the petitioner. 6. Having heard the submissions, I have gone through the record of the case. From perusal of Annexure-1, I find that complaint of the Factory Inspector consists of forwarding letter as well as documents enclosed with it. It then appears that in one of the enclosure of the complaint petition is the letter contained in memo No. 274 dated 23.08.2013. Thus, in my view, the letter contained in memo No. 274 dated 23.08.2013 is also part and partial of the complaint petition. Thus, from perusal of the said letter if any offence is made out, then even though the same has not been written in the forwarding letter, the petitioner can be tried for the said offence. 7. Now coming to the main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order of cognizance is against the provisions of Section 106 of the Factories Act, it is relevant to mention that under proviso to Section 106 of the Factories Act, it is mentioned that if the offence consists of disobeying of the written order made by an Inspector, then in that case, the complaint 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, vide letter contained in memo No. 274 dated 23.08.2013 petitioner was directed by the Factory Inspector to remove all the irregularities within a week, which the petitioner had not removed, rather, by his letter dated 23.09.2013 informed the inspector that no such irregularities exists in the factory premises. 8. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that in the complaint petition it is not mentioned that petitioner had committed any offence by disobeying the direction of Factory Inspector is of no consequences. Said letter contained in memo No. 274 is part and partial of the complaint petition and petitioner has not brought anything on record to show that within seven days he obeyed the order of Factory Inspector. Annexure-3/1 annexed by the petitioner is dated 23.09.2013. thus, it is clear that petitioner had challenged the findings of Factory Inspector after about one month. In my view, said letter has been sent with a view to create defence. 9. Since the direction given by the complainant on 23.08.2013 has not been complied with, therefore, in my view, in the instant case, proviso to Section 106 of the Factories Act will apply. Thus, the complaint can be filed within six months from the date of the knowledge of the offence. Accordingly, I find that there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 20.12.2013. Thus, there is no merit in this application. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Application dismissed.