Criminal Revision No.95 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.95 of 2006 Date of Decision : 08.04.2011 Deputy Director of Factories …Petitioner Versus M.S. Chhachhi …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH -.- Present: Ms. Gagan Mohini, A.A.G., Punjab. Mr. Arihant Jain, Advocate for the respondent. *** GURDEV SINGH, J. (ORAL) Criminal Revision No.95 of 2006 -2- This revision has been preferred by the Deputy Director of Factories, Patiala, who has been designated as Inspector under the Factories Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), against the order dated 26.09.2005 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, vide which the respondent-accused, M.S. Chhachhi, was discharged of the offence under Section 92 of the Act and the complaint was dismissed on the ground of limitation. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant-petitioner filed the complaint before the C.J.M. against the accused with the allegation that he was posted as an officer in Glaxo Simith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, Nabha. He permitted one of the worker; namely, Chamkaur Singh to load one drum weighing 290 Kgs in the trolley without necessary precautions regarding safety of that workman, who received the injury on his foot in the process of loading that drum. As the complaint was filed by the public servant in the discharge of his official duties, so the accused was summoned without recording any preliminary evidence. He appeared before the C.J.M. on 26.03.2005 and was released on bail. On the next date of hearing he moved an application for discharging him on the ground that the complaint was not filed within time and that sanction from the competent authority had not been obtained before filing the same. That application was accepted by the C.J.M., vide the impugned order. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties. Criminal Revision No.95 of 2006 -3- It has been submitted by learned State Counsel that it was wrongly mentioned by the C.J.M. that the complaint was filed on 26.03.2005. In fact the same was filed on 13.11.1995 as is clear from the endorsement made therein. The same having been filed within the prescribed period of limitation could not have been dismissed. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the complaint is liable to be remanded back to the C.J.M. for deciding the same on merits. On the other hand it has been submitted by learned counsel for the accused that from the records of the trial court it cannot be concluded that the complaint was filed on 13.11.1995. It was rightly concluded by the C.J.M. that it was filed on 26.03.2005. The alleged occurrence took place on 08.08.1995 and as such the complaint was filed after more than 3 months of the date, when the commission of the offence came to the notice of the Inspector. In these circumstances, it was rightly concluded by the C.J.M. that he could not have taken the cognizance of the complaint having been filed after the expiry of the period of limitation. Perusal of Section 106 of the Act shows that no Court can take cognizance of an offence punishable under the Act unless the complaint thereof is made within 3 months of the date of which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of an Inspector. From the contents of the complaint it is clear that the commission of the offence came to the notice of the Inspector when Criminal Revision No.95 of 2006 -4- he inspected the premises of the above said company on 16.08.1995. The Court could have taken the cognizance of offence within 3 months of that date. As per the finding recorded by the C.J.M., as is clear from the impugned order, the complaint was filed on 26.03.2005; which is factually incorrect. The records of the C.J.M. were called and have been examined. It contains the summon which had been issued to the accused for 26.03.2005. Therefore, the complaint must have been filed much before that date. On that very date the accused moved an application for contesting the complaint on the ground that no case was made out against him. Even in that application it was mentioned by him that the case was pending before the Court and was fixed for that date. Had the complaint been presented on that date he would have stated in that application that the complaint had been filed on that date itself. The endorsement made on the complaint contains the serial number and the date. The number is 1205 and date is 13.11.1995. It may be said that this was the date on which the complaint was received in the office of the C.J.M. and that fact finds corroboration from another document forming part of the record, vide which one copy of this complaint was sent to the Director of Factories, Punjab and that bears the endorsement No.1206 dated 13.11.1995. In these circumstances, the C.J.M. was to go into the records of this Court and thereafter was to record a finding as to on which date the complaint was filed in the Criminal Revision No.95 of 2006 -5- Court. The fact remains that the complaint was not received on 26.03.2005 and as such the period of limitation was not to be computed from that date. In these circumstances, this revision is hereby accepted. The impugned order dated 26.09.2005 is set aside. The complaint is remanded to C.J.M., Patiala for deciding the same afresh after recording a finding regarding the limitation after going through the records of the Court for determining as to on which date the complaint was filed in that Court. The parties are directed to appear before the C.J.M., Patiala on 18.05.2011. Records be returned forthwith. ( GURDEV SINGH ) April 08, 2011 JUDGE ashish