Kumarayya, J.

[1] This appeal is against the order of the acquittal of Mangaldas V. Thakker, Manager, Golden Tobacco Company who was charged with an offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948. It appears that on 8-7-1956, when the Regional Inspector of Factories, Guntur, went for inspection after 5-30 p.m., he found 823 female workers working in the factory between 5-30 and 6-30 p.m. even though according to the notice displayed' on the Board, the hours of work of female workers were specified from 7-30 a.m. to 11-30 a.m. and 1-30 p.m. to 5-30 p.m. This is said to be a clear contravention of S 63 of the Factories Act of 1948.

He also found that the muster roll maintained was not marked for those workers on the date and this was a contravention of Rule 103 of the Madras Factories Rules framed under the Act. The Manager in defence stated that though the notified hours were as per Ex, P-2, the workers did not come to their work at 7-30 a.m. on account of heavy rain fall and the work in fact had to start from 9 a.m. with the result that in order to make up the full hours for the day, they worked beyond 5-30 p.m. As to the second charge his defence was that the concerned clerk had gone to attend the Stationary Magistrate's Court in obedience to the summons sent to him and the attendance of the workers could not, therefore, be posted in the prescribed register then, though it was entered on a rough paper by another clerk for subsequent posting by the concerned clerk, after his return.

The learned Magistrate, as a result of his enquiry, came to the conclusion that the defence as put forward by the Manager is not only well established but also has not even been denied by the prosecution. P.W. 1, the Inspector himself, admitted that he had not received any complaint from any of the workers that he or she was made to work for more than the prescribed number of hours on that day. He does not categorically deny the fact that the workers attended duty on that day after 9 a.m. due to heavy rain and that is the reason why they were on work beyond 5-30 p.m.

It is not at all the case of the Inspector that the workers had complained in any manner either with regard to the marking of their attendance or to their hours of work. All that is sought to be established by the evidence' is that though the total number of hours of work for the day was not exceeded, in any manner, technically there has been contravention of the Section 63 of the Factories Act and Rule 103 of the Factory Rules.

[2] The question is whether such contravention under the circumstances is punishable under the provisions of the Act. The learned Magistrate is of the view that since there was no deliberate contravention of the rule on the part of the accused, there is no mens rea and hence no offence has been committed.

[3] The learned Counsel for the accused first of all raised a preliminary objection that having regard to the date of the filing of the complaint as is apparent from page 14 of the printed copy, though the occurrence took place on 8-7-1955 the complaint was filed only on 4-11-1955 I.e., evidently beyond three months from the date of the occurrence and as such the prosecution is hit by the provisions of Section 106 of the Factories Act and that the Court below had, therefore, no jurisdiction to entertain such a complaint. But on a perusal of the original record it appears that the complaint was in fact lodged on 30-9-1955 and it was transferred by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate on 4-11-1955. It follows, therefore, that the complaint was filed within the statutory period and hence no question of limitation would arise.

[4] It is then argued that there being no mens rea, the acts complained of cannot constitute an offence. Reliance has been placed on the provision of Section 117 which reads as below:

No suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against any person for anything which is in g