ASHOK AGARWAL - (1.) This petition seeks to challenge the order of issue of process for an offence under the payment of Bonus Act, 1965 read with the Rules framed thereunder. It raises a couple of questions of law for my decision viz. whether the cognizance taken by the learned trial Magistrate was without jurisdiction on account of the complaint being barred by limitation and whether the said complaint is lodged by the Government Labour Officer and the Inspector under the Payment of Bonus Act has been instituted by an authority contemplated under section 30 of that Act and consequently whether the trial Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance of the offence contained in that complaint.
(2.) The complaint in question was filed on the 15th July, 1986 alleging offences under section 10 read with sections 19, 26 and 27(4) of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 read with Rule 4 (a), (b) and (c) of the Rules framed thereunder. It is alleged that the petitioners are the directors of M/s. Avanti Development Company Limited and the Payment of Bonus Act is applicable to the said industry. During the course of the visit of the complainant on the 1st April, 1986, several breaches under the Act were noticed which were punishable under section 28 of the Payment of Bonus Act. A copy of the Government Order regarding authorisation of the complainant for filing the complaint was enclosed with the complaint and it was averred that the evidence both oral and documentary shall be produced at the time of hearing and this complaint was lodged by the complainant who is the Government Labour Officer and Inspector under the payment of Bonus Act.
(3.) Shri Naphade, the learned Advocate appearing in support of the petition, contended that the offences in question were punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to Rs. 4000/- or with both and consequently the period of limitation for filing such a complaint as provided in section 468(2)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was one year. He pointed out by placing reliance upon breach No. 1 contained in the complaint viz. full payment of bonus for 1982 was not paid, the offence alleged had been committed in the year 1982 and hence the present complaint filed on the 15th July, 1986 was hopelessly barred by limitation and the trial Magistrate was not empowered to take cognizance of the said complaint. In regard to the averment made in the complaint "During the courses of my visit on the 1st of April, 1986 under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, the following breaches were detected.....", he submitted that it could not be held that the complaint was within limitation by virtue of section 469(1)(b) on account of the knowledge of the offence of the complainant on his visit on the 1st of April, 1986. According to him the complainant could not be termed as a person aggrieved so as to claim the benefit of section 469(1)(b) for the starting point of the period of limitation from the date of the knowledge of the said offence by the complainant. According to him the only person the would be aggrieved would be the employees of the petitioners and not the complainant. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contentions of Shri Naphade, it will be convenient to reproduce the provisions of section 469 of the Code of Criminal Procedure :- "469. Commencement of the period of limitation--- (1) The period of limitation, in relation to an offence, shall commence.-- (a) on the date of the offence; or (b) where the commission of the offence was not known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to any Police Officer, the first day on which such offence comes to the knowledge of such person or to any Police Officer, whichever is earlier or. (c) where it is not known by whom the offence was committed the first day on which the identity of the offender is known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to the Police Officer making investigation into the offence, whichever is earlier. (2) In computing the said period, the day from which such period is to be computed shall be excluded." Shri Naphade, the learned Advocate placing reliance on the aforesaid section, submitted that the present case would be governed by section 469(1)(a) and the period of limitation would commence from the date of the offence which is the present case according to the complainant had been committed in 1982 and the provisions of sections 469(1)(b) would not be attracted as the complainant who is a Government Labour Officer and Inspector under the Payment of Bonus Act could not be said to be a person aggrieved by the offence nor was he a Police Officer and consequently the provisions of sub-clause (b) would not enure to the benefit of the complainant for availing of the new starting point of period of limitation on the strength of his knowledge of the commission of that offence. Reliance was placed on the case of (Sulochana v. State Registrar of Chits, Madras) reported in 1978 Cri.L.J. page 116, wherein it has been held that the words "person aggrieved by the offence" occurring in section 469(1)(b) and (c) should be given a limited are restricted coverage viz. one who is personally and directly affected by an offence, and not to any member of the public or even an officer who is charged with the duty of enforcing the prohibitory regulations under a status. A Single Judge of the Madras High Court, while dealing with a prosecution under the Tamilnadu Chit Funds Act, (1961), observed that the Registrar had come forward with the complaint in performance of his official duty and not on account of any grievance felt or substained by him personally in the contraventions committed by the petitioner therein. Complaints preferred in discharge of ones official duty are vastly different in character and nature from complaints preferred by person aggrieved by commission of the offences. They distinctly fall in two different categories and the former is not to be confused with the latter. In paragraph 5 of the said judgment, while considering the question whether the Registrar under the Tamilnadu Chit Funds Act can be termed a "Person aggrieved" by the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners therein, reference was made to offences contained in Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code i.e. offences relating to marriage and cognizance of the said offences was barred under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, except upon a compliant made by the husband or wife as the case may be or the guardian of the victim of the offences. A similar reference was made to offences under Chapter XXI i.e. defamation and cognizance of the said offence was barred under section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, except by a person defamed. It was thus held that it was logical to hold that the words "person aggrieved by the offence" occurring in section 469(1)(b) and (c) should also be given a limited or restricted coverage, viz., one who is personally and directly affected by an offence, and not to any member of the public or even an officer who is charged with the duty of enforcing the prohibitory regulations under a statute.;