JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Veervijay Pradhan, learned A.P.P. for the opposite party-State. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been taken through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard on merit. 3. The petitioners have filed this petition for quashing the order dated 21.02.2013 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur in Criminal Revision No.297 of 2012, whereby, revision petition filed by the petitioners has been dismissed. The further prayer is made for quashing the order dated 24.09.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in C/2 Case No.442 of 2012 and also for quashing entire criminal proceeding initiated as against the petitioners in connection with C/2 Case No.442 of 2012. 4. A prosecution report was filed by the opposite party no.2 in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur on 24.09.2012 which was registered as C/2 Case No.442 of 2012 arraying the petitioners as accused with a prayer to take cognizance against them for allegedly committing an offence in terms of Section 92 of the Factories Act for violation of Rules 55(A)(2) and 56(A) of the Bihar (now Jharkhand) Factories Rules, 1950. The petitioners have been arrayed as an accused in their capacity as an occupier and Manager respectively of M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. The complaint has been lodged in connection with an accident which took place on 19.06.2012 at 06:20 p.m. at G&H Blast Furnace Plavourize Coal bin/hopper where it is alleged that at the time of installation of 600 Kg mouthpiece the upper portion of chain block was broken due to which Birju Prasad, Fitter who was standing under it was crushed by the said mouthpiece and has sustained grievous injuries. The injured workman was carried to the hospital but during the course of treatment has died on 24.06.2012. It has been alleged that the accident took place due to violation of Rule 55(A)(2) and 56(A) for which the petitioners are responsible. 5. The only point has been raised in this petition by Mr. The injured workman was carried to the hospital but during the course of treatment has died on 24.06.2012. It has been alleged that the accident took place due to violation of Rule 55(A)(2) and 56(A) for which the petitioners are responsible. 5. The only point has been raised in this petition by Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that Section 106 of the Factories Act prescribes the period of limitation for three months for filing the complaint, under Section 92 of the Factories Act from the date of occurrence. He submits that the date of occurrence is 19.06.2012 and on 20.06.2012 opposite party no.2 inspected the place of occurrence and subsequently required information was furnished in statutory Form 17A by the company. He further submits that the knowledge was there to the Inspector on 19.06.2012 itself and the complaint was filed on 20.09.2012. He further submits that three months' time from the date of occurrence comes to the date on 18.09.2012 and on that day 90 days' has been completed from the date of occurrence. He also submits that the complaint has been filed after 90 days which is against the mandatory provision made under Section 106 of the Factories Act. He further submits that there is no provision of condonation of delay. The petitioners are occupier and Manager under the Factories Act. 6. Mr. Veervijay Pradhan, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State by way of referring Section 106 of the Factories Act submits that the enquiry was going on and the revisional court has rightly held that it will be from the date of filing of the report. 7. For ready reference, Section 106 of the Factories Act reads as under:- “106. Limitation of prosecutions.—No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this 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 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. Provided 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. (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 on 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 expired.” 8. On perusal of the complaint petition, specifically the statements made in paragraph Nos. 3 and 4, it is crystal clear that it was in the knowledge of the Inspector that the occurrence took place on 19.06.2012 and the complaint was admittedly filed on 20.09.2012 and the cognizance under Section 92 of the Factories Act was taken against the petitioners. 9. On bare perusal of Section 106 of the Factories Act (as quoted herein above), it is also crystal clear that the law with regard to filing of the complaint under the Factories Act is within a period of three months from the date of commission of the offence or from the date of knowledge of the occurrence. 10. It is an admitted fact that the complaint was filed on 20.09.2012. However, the occurrence took place on 19.06.2012. From the complaint itself in paragraph nos. 3 and 4, it is clear that it was in the knowledge of the Inspector that the occurrence took place on 19.06.2012 and there is no provision of condonation of delay. The revisional court's finding about the knowledge of date of filing of the report is erroneous as Section 106 of the said Act clearly speaks that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this 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. The Court has also perused the cognizance order dated 24.09.2012 and finds that the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur has taken cognizance in format thereby he has filled up the lines and section. It appears that he has not applied his judicial mind in order taking cognizance. The Court has also perused the cognizance order dated 24.09.2012 and finds that the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur has taken cognizance in format thereby he has filled up the lines and section. It appears that he has not applied his judicial mind in order taking cognizance. The complaint petition itself is time barred under Section 106 of the Factories Act. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts, the entire criminal proceedings in connection with C/2 Case No. 442 of 2012, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, including the order dated 21.02.2013 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur in Criminal Revision No.297 of 2012 and also the order dated 24.09.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur in C/2 Case No.442 of 2012 are, hereby, quashed. 12. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed and disposed of. 13. Consequently, I.A. No. 2621 of 2019 also stands disposed of.