IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.52076 of 2007 1. GOPAL KRISHAN JAIDKA @ GOPAL PRASAD JAIDKA, SON OF SHRI SURENDRA NATH JAIDKA, RESIDENT OF 7, BARUN FELD ROW(MOMINPUR), P.S. EQBALPUR, KOLKATA-700027. 2. RACHNA JAIDKA, WIFE OF GOPAL KRISHAN JAIDKA, RESIDENT OF 7, BARUN FELD ROW(MOMINPUR), P.S. EQBALPUR, KOLKATA- 700027. …………………………………………………………………PETIITONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. BIRENDRA KUMAR MAHTO, LABOUR SUPERINTENDENT –CUM- INSPECTOR,UNDER MINIMUM WAGES ACT, 1948, PATNA , OFFICE OF THE DY. LABOUR COMMISSIONER, PATNA CIRCLE, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. ………………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Alok Kumar Sinha, Advocate. For the State : Dr. Mayanand Jha, A.P.P. ------------ 4. 4.2.2009. The two petitioners, who are Directors of M/s. Jaidka Motor Company, Exhibition Road, Patna and who alongwith others have been made to figure as accused in Complaint Case No.1403(M) of 2002 are aggrieved by and have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 22.6.2002 passed therein by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, whereby he has taken cognizance of alleged offences punishable under Section 22A of the Minimum Wages Act(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The short issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the impugned order is barred by limitation as provided for in Section 22(B) (2) (b) which lays down that no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 22(A) of - 2 - the Act unless the complaint thereof is made within six months of the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed. In this connection, it would appear from perusal of the prosecution report that the inspection of the premises of the company was made at 3.45 P.M. on 19.12.2001 and finding certain irregularities complaint signed on 10.6.2002 was filed before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on 22.6.2002 when cognizance was taken. From above, it would appear that cognizance has been taken in respect of an offence punishable under Section 22(A) of the Act after the expiry of the statutory period of six months and no explanation has been furnished for the delay in lodging of the complaint before the court. It appears from perusal of the complaint that the same was prepared on 10.6.2002 for an incident of 19.12.2001 and though the forwarding letter reveals that the same was sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna on 11.6.2002, for reasons best known to the prosecution, it appears to have been filed in court only on 22.6.2002. In view of the matter of the cognizance having been taken beyond the statutory period of limitation, the same is illegal and without jurisdiction and has to be quashed. The application is allowed. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)