R.R.PRASAD, J. - (1.) FROM the acknowledgment receipt received, it does appear that the notice has been served upon the Opp. Party No.2. In spite of that, the Opp. Party No.2 has not chosen to put appearance.
(2.) ACCORDINGLY , heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State. This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of G.O. No.127 of 2011 including the order dated 20.10.2011 whereby and whereunder learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Seraikella, took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act against the petitioners. The said order is being sought to be quashed on the ground that the order taking cognizance is barred by limitation.
(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State, it does appear that an accident took place within the premises of the factory of the petitioners whereby two workmen died. Information of which was given only on 25.05.2011. When the matter was informed to the Factory Inspector, an inquiry was made and then a complaint was lodged on 20.10.2011. Since, the complaint was filed after 90 days of getting information of the occurrence, according to the petitioners, is barred by limitation.;