The legal principle established is that continuous offences are punishable under the Factories Act, and complaints falling within the proviso to Section 106 are not time-barred.

A. R. SOMNATH IYER, J.

( 1 ) ON November 13, 1963, the Inspector of Factories, Mysore Division, presented four complaints to the District Magistrate, Mandya, against the respondent. In those complaints, the accused was charged with having committed various offences punishable under the relevant provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 (Central Act 63 of 1948 ).

( 2 ) IN C, C. No. 60/63 the accusation was that he had not guarded the grinder and had neglected to fence the belts driving the horizontal saw. In C. C. No. 61/63, it was alleged that he had not maintained form No. 7 which was the record of lime washing and providing a first aid box and had not provided washing facilities for the use of the workers. In C. C. No. 62/63 it was said that he had not provided drinking water facilities, latrines and urinals. In C. C. No. 63/63 it was complained that he had not displayed an abstract in form No. 20 as enjoined by the Act. The complaints stated the various provisions of the Factories Act under which the offences stated to have been committed by the accused were punishable,

( 3 ) THE Inspector of Factories who made those complaints was the only witness who gave evidence in support of the prosecution. During the course of his evidence he stated that he visited the factory of the accused for the first time on May 18, 1963 and again on another occasion on September 12, 1963. He stated that the various transgressions of the various provisions of the Factories Act alleged to in the course of the complaints were all noticed by him both on the first occasion as well as on the next.

( 4 ) ON the basis of this evidence given by the Inspector of Factories, the District Magistrate thought that the complaints were time-barred_ complaints presented beyond the period prescribed by Section 106 of the Factories Act which reads, No court shall take cognizance of any of offense punishable under this Act unless complaint there of is made within three months of the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of an inspector:

Provided that where the offence consists of disobeying a written order made by an Inspector, complaint there of may be made within six months of the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed. The District Magistrate thought that since the offences were all to the knowledge of the inspector committed as early as on May 18, 1963, the complaints which were presented on november 13, 1963 beyond the period of three months prescribed by Section 106 of the Act were time-barred and that the accused was entitled to an acquittal. From these orders of acquittal, the State Government appeals. So these four appeals.

( 5 ) IN the court below, on behalf of the Inspector one of the arguments advanced was that since the Inspector visited the factory of the accused on September 12, 1963 for the second time and since the Inspector served on the accused a written order directing compliance with the provisions of the Act and there was disobedience to that written order the complaints fell within the proviso to Section 106 since they were made within six months from May 18 1963 when the offences were stated to have been committed and were therefore, well within time. But the district Magistrate repelled that contention on the ground that no evidence was produced that any written order had been served on the respondent as contended. Mr. Government Pleader did not therefore very rightly ask us to pronounce in favour of the prosecution in that regard.

( 6 ) BUT Mr. Ashrit, the learned Government Pleader, advanced the argument before us that the district Magistrate was not right in thinking that the complaints were presented beyond the period of three months prescribed by Section 106 of the Factories Act. It seems to us that this submission is without an answer.

( 7 ) P. W. 1 gave evidence that when he visited the factory of the accused on September 1,2, 1963 he observed that the contravention of the var

Click Here to Read the rest of this document