CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS Nos.20762 & 32504, BOTH OF 2004 ******* IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATIONS UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. ******* DIPTIMAN ROY BARDHAN------------------Petitioner (In Both Cases) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. LABOUR ENFORCEMENT OFFICER (CENTRAL) PATNA-11----------- Opp.Parties (In Cr.Misc. 20762/2004) 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, 2. LABOUR ENFORCEMENT OFFICER (CENTRAL) PATNA, 3. SRI ARUN KUMAR. ------------- Opp.Parties (In Cr.Misc. no.32504/2004) ******* For the Petitioner : Mr. S.N. Chaudhary For the State : Mr. Amarendra Prasad. ******* P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA Akhilesh Chandra, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and opposite party in both the cases, who are one and the same. 2. Since in both the cases one common point is involved, they are being disposed of by this composite order. Both the cases have been filed under Section 482 of the Code 2 of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of order taking cognizance for the offences under section 29 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. 3. In the former case Award dated 24th May, 1999 passed in Reference no.11 of 1997 to be operative from the date of reference, that is, 30th December, 1996 and the complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, was filed on 19th September, 2001. On same day cognizance was taken. Whereas in the latter case Award in Reference no. 19(C) of 1998 passed on 19th April, 1999 and complaint was filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna on 20th November, 2000 and same day cognizance was taken. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner simply submitted that for the offence committed under Section 29 of the Industrial Dispute Act the maximum punishment prescribed is six months. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the provision as contemplated under Section 468(2) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure any complaint must have been filed within a year, whereas both the complaints have been filed much after expiry of period of limitation, even without any condonation petition or stating 3 material in the complaint petition itself showing any ground of condonation of delay. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party is not in a position to deny the prevalent legal and factual aspect afore-mentioned. 5. In view of the above, the impugned orders in both the cases are barred by limitation, accordingly, quashed. Both the applications stand allowed. (Akhilesh Chandra, J.) Patna High Court, The 28th July, 2010. AAhmad/ (N.A.F.R.)