IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.42393 of 2007 SMT.SUNITA GUPTA @ SUNITA BINENDU, W/O Sri Binendu Kumar, Proprietor of M/S Acqua Laboratories, „Aruna Awas‟, Kachahri Chowk, R.B.S.S. Road,P.S. Kotwali, District-Bhagalpur. ------------------------------ Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Ashok Kumar Pandey, Labour Encorcement Officer, Jagdishpur, P.S. Jagdishpur, District-Bhagalpur ------ Opp.Parties. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Alok Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. For Opp.Party no.2 : None. ---------- O R D E R 3 02-03-2009 The petitioner, who is the proprietor of M/S Acqua Laboratories, Bhagalpur (hereinafter referred to as “the Company”) manufacturing distilled water, is aggrieved by the order dated 24.7.2007 passed in Complaint Case bearing G.P.S. Case no.225 of 2004 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhagalpur, whereby he has taken cognizance of alleged offences said to have been committed under Sections 18, 12(1) and 19(4) of the Minimum Wages Act (hereinafter referred to as “ the M.W.Act”) punishable under Section 22 A thereof. It appears that prior hereto the petitioner had moved this Court in Cr.Misc.No.13764 of 2005, which was disposed of by order dated 5.1.2007 directing the court in seisin of the case to look into the complaint petition and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, since the cognizance under Sections 22(b) and 9(b) of the Minimum Wages Act were invalid as no such Sections were available in the Act. - 2 - The learned court below was also directed to consider the question of complaint petition being barred by limitation in the light of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court. The grievance agitated by the petitioner now is that the learned Magistrate has suo motu condoned the limitation without any petition being filed in that regard and more so when the Minimum Wages Act being Special Act, there is no provision therein for condonation of delay in filing the complaint. Apparently the learned Magistrate passing the impugned order has misdirected himself or has been remiss of the current position in law. The short issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order is barred by limitation as provided for in Section 22 (B)(2) (b) of the Act which lays down that no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 22 ( A) of the Act unless the complaint thereof is made within six months of the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed. It appears that inspection of the premises was made on 4.3.2004 and although prosecution report had been prepared on 3.9.2004, the cognizance had been taken only on23.9.2004. The learned court has admitted that since there had been a little delay he was condoning the same. From the above facts, it would appear that the cognizance has been taken in respect of an offence punishable under Section - 3 - 22(A) of the Act after the expiry of the statutory period of six months and neither has any explanation been furnished for the delay nor has petition been filed for condoning the delay in lodging of the complaint before the court. In that view of the matter, the cognizance having been taken beyond the statutory period of limitation, the same is illegal and without jurisdiction and has to be quashed. Accordingly, the application is allowed. NKS/- ( Abhijit Sinha, J)