Section 106 of the Factories Act does not prohibit the taking of cognizance after three months from the date of knowledge of the alleged commission of the offence.

Kamla Sahai, J.

1. These appeals have been heard together because the parties are the same, and the point involved is also common. This judgment will govern them both.

2. The respondent in both cases, Satnarain Bhuwania, is the occupier and manager of Ram Sugar Factory at Amarpur in Bhagalpur District. R. C. Sinha, Inspector of Factories, Bhagalpur Circle, inspected the factory on the 9th and 10th January, 1956. He sent two petitions of complaint to the District Magistrate of Bhagalpur, one on the 13th March, 1958, which is in question in Government Appeal No. 20, and the other on the 21st March, 1956, which is in question in Government Appeal No. 21. He complained in both petitions that the respondent had committed, offences under, Section 92 of the Factories Act (LXIII of 1948), which will be referred to hereafter as the Act.

The Subdivisional Magistrate of Banka took cognizance of the two cases on the 2nd and 24th, April, 1956, and they were later, transferred for disposal to Shri V. Vihari, a Judicial Magistrate with first class powers at Banka. A preliminary objection was taken in both cases before him on the 19th July, 1958, to the effect that, in view of Sec.106 of the Act, cognizance of an offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act could not be taken more than three months after the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of the Inspector. This objection prevailed, and the learned Magistrate, by his order of the same date, acquitted the respondent in both cases under Sec.245 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The State of Bihar has filed these appeals against those two orders.

3. The learned Additional Standing Counsel has contended that the orders of acquittal are based upon an erroneous interpretation of Sec.106, and that that section does not prohibit the taking of cognizance after three months. It is, therefore, necessary to consider and find the true interpretation of the section which reads :

"106. Limitation of prosecution. No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under the Act unless complaint thereof is made within three months of the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of an Inspector."

I have omitted the proviso because it is irrelevant for the purposes of this case.

4 The language used in the section is plain and unambiguous. A mere perusal of it makes it abundantly clear that the complaint must be filed within three months of the date on which the commission of the offence came to the knowledge of the Inspector. There is nothing in the section which can be construed to mean that cognizance must also be taken within the same period.

5. The learned Magistrate has relied upon a decision of R. Singh, J. in Madanlal Haweliwala V/s. State, AIR 1954 All 27 The learned Judge has made some observations in that case to the effect that, under Sec.106 of the Factories Act, cognizance of an offence can only be taken within three months of the date of knowledge of the alleged commission of the offence. With great respect, this view cannot be accepted as correct. The learned Judge has himself held in Shiva Behari V/s. State, AIR 1954 All 255, that Sec.106 does not make it necessary that cognizance should be taken within three months of the date of knowledge of the alleged commission of the offence. The same point came up for consideration before a Division Bench of the same High Court in Gopal Das Sak-seria V/s. The State, (S) AIR 1955 All 511. Their Lordships have held in that case that the observation in Madanlals case, (AIR 1954 All 27) to the effect that cognizance must be taken within three months was not correct. I respectfully agree with this view.

6. The next question is when a complaint can be held to have been made. The Additional Standing Counsel has argued that it must be held to have been made as soon as the Inspector despatches it by registered post to the address of the officer or Court empowered to take