IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.47864 of 2007 BALKRISHNA BHALOTIA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 3/ 12/2/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner questions his prosecution under Section-22A of the Minimum Wages Act and the consequent order of cognizance dated 9.3.2007 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamui in Case No.27- C/2/2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Section-22B of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Section-22B(2)(b) of the Act the complaint was required to be made within six months from the date that the offence is alleged. The complaint alleges the offence on 21.8.2006. From the order of the court below he submits that the prosecution report was submitted beyond period of limitation on 9.3.2007. Learned counsel for O.P. No.2 submits that the prosecution report was, in fact, dated 15.2.2007 as mentioned on the face of it which was within limitation. The order of the court below dated 9.3.2007 2 in the opening lines itself says “received prosecution report”. That leaves no room for doubt that the prosecution report was, in fact, submitted in court on 9.3.2007 beyond the period of limitation. The date which the opposite party may have put on the prosecution report and retained the same with himself cannot come to his aid to save the limitation. In view of the statutory bar, as noticed above, this Court holds that the entire prosecution under Section-22 of the Minimum Wages Act in Case No.27-C2/2007, pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamui is barred by limitation and is not sustainable in law. It is accordingly quashed. The application is allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)