- (1.) IN view of the office note notice Issued upon opposite party No. 2 seems to have been validly served.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that an accident between trailer and a jeep took place on 1.8.2010 within the premises of M/s. Tata Steel Growth Shop whereby one person namely. Tapan Banerjee died after receiving injuries in the said vehicular accident. An information of the said accident was given by the Manager of the Factory to the inspector of Factories on 18.8.2010, which was received by the Inspector of Factories on 19.8.2010 receiving such information. Inspector of Factories inspected the premises of M/s. Tata Steel Group Shop and took statement of some of the persons wherein one of the witnesses stated that at the time of accident, speed of the vehicle was 35 kilometer per hour but that statement according to the witness is based on his assumption whereas other witness namely Manoj Singh driver of the Trailer stated that he was never driving the vehicle beyond the stipulated seed of 16 kilometer per hour. In spite of that, a complaint was filed on 19.11.2010 which was registered as G.P case No. 122 of 2010 in which cognizance of the offence was taken on the same day under Section of the Factories Act by holding that the .petitioner of the factory by contravening the Rule 123 and also Rule 96 of the Factories Rules has committed offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act which order has been challenged in this application.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order taking cognizance being hit by Section 106 of the Factories Act is bad as complaint was filed on 91st day from the date when the complainant derived knowledge of the occurrence whereas should have been filed within 90 days as such the order taking cognizance is bad on this ground.;