- (1.) THE instant revision is directed against the order impugned dated August 3,2009 by which the petition filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 251 Code of Criminal Procedure for exonerating them from their criminal liability in a summons trial case was rejected by Shri Amy Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi in C-1II-16/2005.
(2.) THE short question that has been raised in the instant Criminal revision is as to whether or not the cognizance of the offence though it has not expressly been mentioned in the order, assumed to be taken under Section 92 of the Factories Act 1948 was maintainable beyond the statutory period of limitation of three months for the alleged violation of the Provisions of Rule 56-C(l)(a) of the Jharkhand Factory Rules. The short fact of the case was that the Complainant-Factory Inspector filed a complaint before the C.J.M. Ranchi on February 28, 2005 alleging inter alia that the petitioner No. 1 being the Director (Personnel) was occupier of the factory; whereas the petitioner No. 2 N.K. Pandey being the Manager of Foundry Forged Plant within Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. Dhurwa, Ranchi had not provided safety device to the workers as a result of which one Ravi Shankar Verma, who was cleaning roof of asbestos of the factory, fell down and succumbed to his injuries and thereby the petitioners violated the provision as laid down under Rules 56-C(1)(a) of Jharkhand Factory Rules. The alleged accident took place on September 25, 2004 at about one o'clock during working hours and on the same day the matter was informed to the Factory Inspector. The factory Inspector visited the place of occurrence on September 30,2004 and thereafter he signed the complaint on December 23,2004 which was presented in the Court of C.J.M. on February 28, 2005. The learned counsel raised the contention that Section 106 of the Factories Act 1948 provides limitation of prosecution which is quoted herein below: "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 the offence came to the knowledge of an Inspector: Provided that where the offence consists of disobeying a written order made by an Inspector, complaint thereof may be made within six months of the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed. For the purpose of this Section- (a) in the case of a continuing offence, the period of limitation shall be computed with reference to every point of time during which the offence continues. (b) where for the performance of any act time is granted or extended on an application made by the occupier or manager of a factory, the period of limitation shall be computed from the date on which the time so granted or extended expired".
(3.) THE learned counsel strongly contended that though the occurrence as alleged took place on September 25, 2004 but the cognizance of the offence was taken February 28, 2005 beyond the statutory period of limitation. It would be relevant to mention from perusal of the cognizance order dated February 28, 2005 that it was silent as to for which alleged offence the cognizance was taken though in the complaint it was stated that offence was committed under Section 92 of the Act for violation of Rule 56-C(l)(a) of Jharkhand Factory Rules. Finally the learned counsel submitted that the complaint was not filed within statutory period of limitation and the cognizance of the offence was taken without considering the mandatory provision of Section 106 of the Factories Act. That apart, the petitioners can not be held responsible for the alleged accident which took place in the factory premises as the work was assigned to the contractor Indrajeet Prasad who should have been made accused in this case in place of the petitioners and the learned Magistrate thereby committed error by not appreciating the objection of the petitioners on the point of maintainability of the complaint which was filed beyond statutory period of limitation, so, neither cognizance of the offence was maintainable beyond the period of 90 days nor prosecution of the petitioners and therefore, criminal prosecution of the petitioners would tantamount to abuse of the process of the Court. The request of the petitioners as made under Section 251 Cr.P.C. for their exoneration from the criminal liability could not be appreciated on erroneous consideration and it was rejected which calls for interference of this Court by allowing the instant Criminal Revision.;