JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - By way of this petition, challenge has been laid to order dated 20th July, 2016, passed by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., which reads as under: "...Be registered. There is no need to examine the complainant in preliminary evidence, as the complaint has been filed by a public servant in official capacity. On perusal of complaint with connected documents, I find sufficient grounds to proceed against accused persons under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948. Let accused persons be summoned for 24.9.2016." 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the petition are that a complaint has been filed against the present petitioner under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 by the Labour Inspector-cum-Additional Inspector, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. on the alleged violations of the statutory provisions noticed by the officer concerned on his visit to the premises of the factory on 15.02.2016. 3. Impugned order stands passed on the said complaint which was filed by the Inspector in the Court on 16th June, 2016. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in law, as the same has been passed by the learned Court below in a mechanical manner without taking into consideration the provisions of Section 106 of the Factories Act, 1948, which mandatorily stipulate that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under the Factories Act, 1948 unless complaint thereof is made within three months of the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of the Inspector. According to learned Senior Counsel, as admitted date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of the Inspector is 15th February, 2016, therefore, it was the duty of the learned Court below to have had considered the fact as to whether as from that date, the complaint was within limitation or not. He has further argued that the so called Rectification Notice dated 24.04.2016, which finds mention in the complaint does not exist as no such Notice was ever served upon the petitioner by the Inspector, as alleged in the complaint. Mr. He has further argued that the so called Rectification Notice dated 24.04.2016, which finds mention in the complaint does not exist as no such Notice was ever served upon the petitioner by the Inspector, as alleged in the complaint. Mr. Vaidya has further argued that the impugned order suggests that process stood initiated after perusing the complaint and connected documents, whereas fact of the matter is that there was no Notice dated 24.04.2016 filed with the complaint, which demonstrates that issuance of process was without due application of judicial mind. 5. On the other hand, Mr. R. P. Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General has argued that after the premises were visited by the Inspector, he had issued a Rectification Notice, though it was termed as a Show-cause Notice and the same is dated 28th March, 2016 and as from the said date, in terms of the specific provisions of Section 106 of the Factories Act, 1948, the complaint is within limitation. He has further argued that even otherwise, petitioner has approached the Court after a long delay and therefore also, the present petition is not maintainable. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned order as also the record of the case. 7. Chapter X of the Factories Act, 1948 deals with Penalties and Procedure, meaning thereby that Factories Act, 1948 is both Substantive as well as Procedural law. 8. Section 92 thereof deals with General Penalty for Offences committed under the Statute. Section 106 of the Act expressly contemplates that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under the 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 the Inspector. Proviso to the said Section provides that where the offence consists of disobeying a written order 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. 9. Complaint is appended with the petition as Annexure P-2. It stands mentioned therein that inspection of M/s Akom India Limited, Nihalgarh, Paonta Sahib was conducted on 15.02.2016 by the complainant and violations of the provisions of various Labour Laws and Factory Act were detected during the course of inspection. 9. Complaint is appended with the petition as Annexure P-2. It stands mentioned therein that inspection of M/s Akom India Limited, Nihalgarh, Paonta Sahib was conducted on 15.02.2016 by the complainant and violations of the provisions of various Labour Laws and Factory Act were detected during the course of inspection. It is further mentioned in the complaint that the violations so detected were reflected in the Rectification Notice dated 24.04.2016 and Occupier and Factory Manager submitted reply and photo copies of the record/registers only but did not produce the original record of the employees/workers and perusal of the reply and registers reflected that violations were still to be rectified. On these bases, complaint was filed with the prayer that Occupier and Manager of the factory be punished under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948. 10. Record demonstrates that alleged Notice dated 24th April, 2016, which stands referred to in the complaint filed under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, is not on record. In these circumstances, it was incumbent upon the learned Court below, before issuing process under Section 92 of the Act, to have applied its judicial mind, in view of the language of Section 106 of the Act, as to whether the complaint was within limitation or not. 11. The language used in Section 106 of the Act is in the negative form. It envisages that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under the Act, unless the complaint is made within the period specified therein, meaning thereby that if the complaint is not filed before the Court within the period envisaged in the Section, then irrespective of the fact as to whether any offence on merit is made out or not, the Court is barred from taking cognizance of the same. That being so, issuance of process cannot be mechanical and there has to be due application of judicial mind by the Court before cognizance of the offence is taken. 12. This seems not to have been done in the present case. From the perusal of the impugned order, it cannot be inferred that this aspect of the matter was gone into by the learned Court below before issuance of process. In other words, it appears that the factum of the complaint being within limitation has not been gone into by the learned Court below before passing the impugned order. 13. From the perusal of the impugned order, it cannot be inferred that this aspect of the matter was gone into by the learned Court below before issuance of process. In other words, it appears that the factum of the complaint being within limitation has not been gone into by the learned Court below before passing the impugned order. 13. This, in my considered view, is contrary to the spirit and mandate of Section 106 of the Act and in this view of the matter, the impugned order is not sustainable in law. 14. In view of the discussion held hereinabove, this petition is partly allowed. Impugned order dated 20th July, 2016 is set aside and the case is remanded back to the learned Trial Court with the direction that it shall proceed with the matter strictly in consonance with the provisions of Section 106 of the Factories Act. It is clarified that the issue shall be adjudicated upon by the learned Court below on merit on the basis of material on record and it shall not be influenced by any observation made by this Court in this order, as the same was only for the purpose of adjudication of the present petition. Petition stands disposed of in above terms. Copy dasti.