B.J.SHETHNA,J. - (1.) THE petitioners -accused have filed this revision against the judgment and order dt. 15.9.1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Udaipur in Cr. Appeal No. 2/93 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners and confirming the judgment and order dt. 10.12.1993 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udaipur in case No. 208/90 by which the petitioners came to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 (for short 'Act') and sentenced them to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/ - each in default of payment of fine, to undergo six months SI.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners Mr. Garg has raised two contention in this petition. (1) that the complaint was filed after the expiry of the period of limitation of three months of the commission of an offence, which is bailed under Section 106 of the Factories Act, 1948. (2) that the substance of the accusation was not read over to both the accused in their statements under Section 313 Cr. P.C. Mr. Garg submitted that the accident took place on 27.2.1992 in the Factory of the petitioners for which the complaint was filed by the complainant Nand Lal Salecha for the first time before the trial court only on 5.6.1990. Thus, admittedly it was filed much after the expiry of period of limitation of three months. He has submitted that both the courts below have, therefore, committed an error in convicting the accused in a matter where the courts below could not have taken cognizance against the accused after the expiry of period of limitation.
(3.) SECTION 106 reads as under: Section 106 - -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 offence came to the knowledge of the Inspector. Provided. . . ;