appln430-11.sxw jpc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.430 OF 2011 (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO._____ OF 2011 (FOR LEAVE TO PREFER APPEAL) The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant Versus Arvind S. Bharati .. Respondent Mrs. P. P.Shinde, APP for the applicant-State CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 13th September, 2011. P.C.: 1. Affidavit of Notice is filed by the Applicant-State. 2. Heard Mrs. Shinde, the learned APP for the applicant- State. 3. For the reasons given in the application for condonation of delay in filing the application for leave to prefer appeal is condoned. 4. The application for condonation of delay stands disposed of. 5. The application for leave be registered. 6. Heard the learned APP on the application for leave to prefer appeal. Perused the impugned judgment. 7. It was a complaint under Section 92 of the Factories 1 appln430-11.sxw Act, 1948. Section 105 of the Factories Act provides that "No Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act except on complaint by, or with the previous sanction in writing of, an Inspector". Therefore, either the complaint could be filed by the Factory Inspector himself or by any other officer with previous sanction in writing of the Inspector. 8. The learned trial Court, while acquitting the accused, noted that the complainant had not produced any notification to show that he was appointed as Inspector. He had also not produced any sanction order. In view of this fact, by virtue of provisions of Section 105 of the Factories Act, cognizance of the complaint cannot be taken. 9. I find no fault in the impugned order of acquittal for the offenes punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act. Therefore, leave to prefer appeal against the acquittal is refused. 10. The Application for leave to prefer appeal stands rejected. ( J.H. BHATIA, J. ) 2