Rumachandriah, J. - (1.) Petitioner was the complainant and respondents 1 to 3 were accused Nos. 1 to 3 respectively in C.C. No. 2010/87 on the file of the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore City, (for short 'the Special Court') C.C. No. 2010/87 arose out of a private complaint filed by the petitioner Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') against the respondents (hereinafter referred to as 'the accused') on 30-11-1987 alleging that the accused have violated the provisions of Sections 44 and 45(2) of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act') for which they are liable to be prosecuted for commission of an offence under clauses (f) and (g) of Section 85 of the Act for non-production of the documents mentioned against SI. Nos. 1 to 8 of paragraph-7(b) of the complaint for scrutiny by the Inspector of the Corporation as called upon in the notices dated 7-1-1987, 7-5-1987 and 20-8-1987 issued to the accused after he visited M/s. Gera Auto Industries (P) Ltd., Pecnya Industrial Area, Bangalore-58 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Factory') on 3-1-1986, 28-11-1986, 7-5-1987 and 1-6-1987. The documents referred to in para-graph-7(b) of the complaint are: JUDGEMENT_363_KANTLJ3_1990Html1.htm
(2.) In response to the summons issued to the accused, who are described as the Managing Director, Works Manager and Officer-in-charge respectively of the Factory, they appeared before the Special Court and filed an application under Section 468 Cr.P.C. praying for the dismissal of the complaint as it was barred by time inasmuch as, the complainant had previously issued a notice dated 28-8-1982 to the accused for the production of the same records mentioned in paragraph-7(b) of the complaint and, therefore, the complaint filed on 30-11-1987 was barred by time. It was contended by the complainant that the limitation starts from the last visit of the Inspector to the Factory on 1-6-1987 and, therefore, the complaint filed on 30-11-1987 was not barred by limitation.
(3.) The Presiding Officer of the Special Court by an order dated 26-3-1990 came to the conclusion that the correct provision of law applicable to the plea of limitation taken by the accused is sub-section (3) of Section 86 of the Act which provides that "no Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act except on a complaint made in writing in respect thereof, within six months from the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed" and not Section 468 Cr.P.C. under which the accused had filed the application; that in the case on hand, the complainant had issued a notice in 1982 itself calling upon the accused to produce the very same records mentioned in the complaint for inspection, and, therefore, the cause of action to file the complaint had arisen in the year 1982 itself and, as such, the complaint should have been filed within six months from the date of the notice issued in 1982 and, therefore, the complaint filed on 30-11-1987 was clearly barred by limitation. Consequently, the Presiding Officer dismissed the complaint as barred by limitation.;