U.C.Srivastava - (1.) THESE two applications under Section 482, Cr.P.C read with Section 307, Cr P.C. have: been filed against the order dated 20-8-77 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Lucknow, under the Factories Act and the Rules framed thereunder on similar grounds.
(2.) IN Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 1543 of 1977 the applicant is occupier of M/s. Sundari Surti Stores, Tikait Rai Talab Road, Lucknow, while in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 1624 of 1977 the applicant is occupier of M/s. Anandi Udoyog, Aishbagh, Lucknow. IN the first case the inspection was made on 7th August, 1976 while in the second case the inspection was made on 9-6-76 by the INspector of Factories and on the basis of inspection reports in both these cases complaints under secs. 6 and 7 of the Factories Act, read with rules 3, 6, 13 and 14 of U. P. Factories Rules were sent by registered post to the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow. Before the said court objections were filed by the applicants challenging the jurisdiction of the court and maintainability of the complaint. The objection of the applicants in both the cases was that there was no complaint in the eyes of law and further that by virtue of section 105 of the Factories Act the complaint was not entertainable, the same not having been made by the INspector of the area. The Judicial Magistrate in both these cases by separate orders dated 20-8-1976 in Criminal Miscellaneous Case Nos. 1543 of 1977 and 1624 of 1977 overruled the said objection, hence these applications under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that since the prosecution of the applicants is based on no complaint and the court was proceeding without jurisdiction the same amounts to abuse of process of law and violation of provisions of law and as such the ends of justice require that the proceedings pending in the court of the Judicial Magistrate be quashed. Sri Akhilesh Sahai, learned counsel for the applicants, made two submissions before me. The first submission made in both the cases is that the complaint was sent by the Inspector by post and the cognizance of the same was taken which could not have been done in view of the fact that it was no complaint in the eyes of law, as such no proceedings on the basis of the same could take place. Section 105 of the Factories Act reads as follows : "Cognizance of offences-(1) No court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act except on complaint by, or with the previous sanction in writing of an Inspector. (2) ..............." Thus in respect of violation or contravention of the provisions of the Factories Act and the Rules framed thereunder the inspector is empowered under that Act either to file the complaint or accord sanction for the same. A perusal of the provisions of the Factories Act shows that there is no provision in the said Act for personal presentation of the complaint to the competent Magistrate by the Inspector or some one under the authority of the Inspector. Power to file a complaint is conferred upon the Inspector who is to bring to the notice of the Magistrate the contravention and violation of the provisions of the Act or Rules framed thereunder by some manager or occupier and that power is not excluded by the provisions of Section 9 of the Indian Factories Act and as such even if a complaint is sent by the Inspector by post, the same is to be received and proceedings thereon can take place.
(3.) SECTION 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under :- S. 190 "(1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the Second class specifically empowered in this behalf under sub-section (2) may take cognizance of any offence- (a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence ; (b) upon a police report of such facts ; (c) Upon information received from any person other than a police officer or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed. (2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under subsection (1) ,of such offence as are within his competence to inquire into or try." Section 190 Cr.P.C. as it stood at the relevant point to time, nowhere provided for filing of the complaint by the inspector before the court concerned. Section 190, Cr.P.C. has not been amended and the same also does not exclude the receipt of the complaint by post and if some such complaint is received by post the Magistrate is empowered to proceed on the basis of the same. Clause (c) of Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure confers upon a Magistrate wide power to take cognizance of an offence even if information and knowledge is received by him from some quarter that an offence has been committed which may thus include information received by way of complaint through post. Thus the first contention of the learned counsel has got no force and it cannot be said that there has been any abuse of process of law or the Magistrate has acted or is acting in violence of law what to say flagrant violation of law.;