T. S. Misra, J. - (1.) THIS reference has been made by the Additional Civil and Sessions Judge, Agra, recommending that the order of Sri H. M. Saran, City Magistrate, Agra dated 22-11-1971 be set aside and the compalint filed by the Apprenticeship Advisor be dismissed as barred by limitation. The facts lie within a narrow campus.
(2.) ON 28-6-1971 a complaint was filed in the court of City Magistrate, Agra, against Surajbhan Agarwal and another under Section 2(3) read with Section 30(1)(c) of the Apprentices Act, 1961, herinafter referred to as the Act, alleging that as a result of survey of the shop in question on 14th October, 1970 in pursuance of Section 8(3) of the said Act a notice was issued on 30th November, 1970 to engage apprentices as prescribed by the Act. Thereafter a show cause notice dated 29th April, 1971 was issued which was not complied with. Hence the complaint was filed. The accused filed an application contending that the complaint having been filed beyond the period of limitation of 6 months was not maintainable and the proceedings should be dropped. The learned Magistrate rejected that application, whereupon a revision was preferred before the Sessions Judge. The learned Additional Civil and Sessions Judge, Agra who heard the revision has observed that the complaint was filed beyond the period of limitation of 6 months and has made reference making the aforesaid recommendations. Sec. 33 of the Act provides that no court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act except on a complaint made by the Apprenticeship Advisor within six months from the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed. Thus, the complaint is to be filed within 6 months from the date on which the offence is said to have been committed. In other words, the date of the commission of the offence and not of the detection of the offence is relevant and material for the purposes of determining as to whether the complaint has been filed within the period prescribed. The period of limitation commences under Section 33 from the date on which the offence is committed. Section 8 of the Act deals with number of apprentices for a designated trade. Sub-Section (1) of this section empowers the Central Government to determine for each designated trade the ratio of apprentices to workers other than unskilled workers in that trade. Sub-Section (3) of that section is relevant for the purposes of this case and may be reproduced. It reads the Apprenticeship Advisor may, by notice in writing, require an employer to engage such number of apprentices within the ratio determined by the Central Government for any designated trade in his establishment, to undergo apprenticeship training in that trade and the employer shall comply with such requisition. Subsection (6) of Sec. 8 of the Act requires every employer to comply with the requisition made by the apprenticeship advisor. If an employer contravenes provisions of this Act relating to the number of trainee which he has to employ he would be punishable under Section 30(c) of the Act. Hence if the apprenticeship advisor by a notice in writing given under sub-Section (3) of Section 8 of the Act requires an employer to engage apprentices within the ratio determined by the Central Government for any designated trade in his establishment to undergo apprenticeship training in that trade the employer shall have to comply with such requisition. There would be no occasion for contravention of the provisions of sub Section (3) of Section 8 of the Act unless the apprenticeship advisor gives a notice in writing requiring the employer to engage the apprentice. In the instant case a notice dated 30th November, 1970 was given by the apprenticeship advisor under Section 8 (3) of the Act which is alleged to have not been complied with. By this notice M/s. Agarwal Press were required to engage compositor hand as apprentice and they were told that if they failed to engage these apprentices within a period of 30 days from the date of notice necessary action would be taken. It is not known when this notice was actually received by the addressee. The receipt of notice was, however, admitted by Surajbhan in paragraph 3 of his application dated 4th October, 1971. Hence, if the period of 30 days were to be calculated from the date of the notice the period for compliance of that notice expired on 30th December, 1970. Surajbhan in paragraph 3 of his aforesaid application dated 4th October, 1971 stated that the said notice was not complied with. The period of limitation for filing the complaint, therefore, commences on 30-12-1970. The limitation prescribed in Section 33 is 6 months. The period of 6 months calculated from the date of 30th December, 1970 expired on 30th June, 1971. The complaint was, however, filed on 26th June, 1971. It was, therefore, not barred by limitation. The order passed by the learned City Magistrate, Agra, holding that the complaint was within limitation is to be maintained though on a different reason. I, therefore, reject the reference and uphold the order of the City Magistrate, Agra, dated 22 - 1-1971. Reference rejected.;