RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY,J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. V.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned counsel for the State. No one appears on behalf of opposite party no. 2 in spite of valid service of notice. In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Case No. C/2 -389 of 2012 including the order dated 7.8.2012, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, at Jamshedpur, whereby and whereunder he has been pleased to take cognizance for the offence under section 92 of the Factories Act.
(2.) THE prosecution story as would appear from the prosecution report submitted by the Factory Inspector, Jamshedpur Area No. 1, Jamshedpur, is to the effect that on 4.5.2012, an accident had taken place in the factory premises of M/s TACO Composites Limited, Plot No.5532, wherein one Rohit Kumar Jha while he was climbing down the stairs, fell down and sustained injuries on his right leg. It was also alleged therein that since there was no railing in the ladders and as such the same is in violation of Rule 55A(2) of the Factories Rules and the petitioners have been made accused since they were working in the capacity of occupier and manager of the said Factory.
(3.) AFTER the prosecution report was submitted before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, cognizance was taken vide order dated 7.8.2012 for the offence under section 92 of the Factories Act., 1948. It was submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioners that in contravention to the provisions of section 106 of the Factories Act, although the accident had taken place on 4.5.2012 but the complaint was filed on 7.8.2012, which is beyond the period of three months as prescribed under section 106 of the Factory Act and therefore the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur has committed an error of law in taking cognizance for the offence under section 92 of the Factories Act.;