- (1.) This Cr.M.P. has been filed for quashing the order dated 21.04.2003 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chas at Bokaro in connection with F.A. Case No.02 of 2003 by which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance under Rule 55A(1) and 55A(2) of Jharkhand Factories Rules, 1950.
(2.) It is submitted that the learned Magistrate has not applied judicial mind while taking cognizance because it is apparent that Rule 55A(1) and 55A(2) of Jharkhand Factories Rules, 1950 do not have penal provisions. For the violation of aforesaid rules, the punishment prescribed is under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948. Learned C.J.M. has passed the impugned order without application of judicial mind and he did not bother to go through the relevant provisions of law before passing the impugned order. The cognizance cannot be taken in a mechanical way and person against whom summons have been directed to be issued should not be put to rigor of trial in such circumstances. The cognizance taken by learned C.J.M. is bad in law and same is liable to be quashed.
(3.) The second point which the learned counsel has taken is that the incident took place on 08.01.2003 and it was duly communicated in the prescribed form on 10.01.2003. The Inspector of Factories has filed complaint on 21.04.2003. Section 106 of the Factories Act says that 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 come to the knowledge of an Inspector. The accident which took place on 08.01.2003 was duly informed in prescribed form on 10.01.2003 but the complaint was filed on 21.04.2003, i.e. after lapse of three months and therefore, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate should not have taken cognizance and should have considered the presentation of complaint as time barred.;