Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Rai Chattopadhyay, J.
Binit Kumar Jain & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Asok Kumar Saha - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 726 of 2015, CRAN 1 of 2015 (Old No. CRAN 749 of 2015)
Decided On : 16-01-2023
FACTORIES ACT, 1948 - SECTION 106 - Three months' limitation period for prosecution under the Act means three calendar months, not 90 days.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, the owner of a factory, was accused of violating the West Bengal Factories Rules, 1958, framed under the Factories Act, 1948. The complaint against him was filed more than 90 days after the alleged commission of the offense, but within three calendar months. The petitioner argued that the complaint was barred by limitation as the 'three months' period under Section 106 of the Factories Act meant 90 days.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the period of 'three months' as envisaged in Section 106 of the Factories Act, 1948, would mean and be similar to a period of three congestive months in the English calendar. This may be 90 (ninety) days or even a period not more than 90 (ninety) days depending on which months of the year fall in between.
Issues: Whether the period of 'three months' prescribed in Section 106 of the Factories Act, 1948, would mean the period of 90 (ninety) days, as claimed by the petitioner, or it would denote a period dissimilar with that of 90 (ninety) days.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the definition of 'month' in Section 3 (35) of the General Clause Act, 1897, which states that 'month' shall mean a month reckoned according to the British calendar. The court also referred to several judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts, which held that when the period prescribed is three months (as contrasted from 90 days) from a specific date, the said period would expire in the third month on the date corresponding to the date upon which the period starts. As a result, depending on the months, it may mean 90 days or 91 days or 92 days or 89 days.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner, holding that the impugned judgment and order of the Sessions Judge was based on a proper appreciation of the settled law and did not require any interference.
JUDGMENT
Rai Chattopadhyay, J. - The very short point involved in this revision is the consideration as to what period would constitute the period of 'three months' in accordance with Section 106 of the Factories Act, 1948.
2. Petitioner has challenged the order and judgment of the Trial Court dated 12.11.2014 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge at Haldia, Purba Medinipur in Criminal Revision Case No. 7/14. By dint of the same the Trial Court has affirmed the order of the Magistrate dated 05.05.2014 passed in C.R. Case No. 539 of 2012. Petitioner prayed before the Trial Court for his discharge, which was rejected by the said two courts by dint of the respective orders as mentioned above. As such petitioner was aggrieved and came up before this Court to espouse its jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr.P.C, 1973.
3. The petitioner's case in a nutshell would be stated as below:-
The petitioner is the owner of the factory and business namely 'Rohit Ferro-Tech Limited'. Against the petitioner, a complaint was lodged in the Court of the Magistrate at Haldia on 10.12.2012 contending inter alia that the petitioner has contravened provisions of Rule 63 K (1) (c) of the West Bengal Factories Rules, 1958, framed under Sections 41B, 41C and 112 of the Factories Act, 1948. Precisely, the following were the contraventions:
That your petitioner submits that during the aforesaid inspection, it was ascertained and noted that the factory:
(a) Were having five (5) furnaces running and around 450 (four hundred fifty) workers were engaged in manipulation (manual chromium cake breaking, furnace and material handling etc.) of chromium/chromium compounds etc but:
(i) Every worker employed in any chromium process was never produced for examination by the Certifying Surgeon within 15 days of his (worker) first employment along with tests for detection of chromium in urine;
(ii) Every worker employed in any chromium process was never produced for examination by the Certifying Surgeon at least once in every six (6) calendar months along with tests as mentioned above (if required);
(iii) No such aforesaid medical examinations, for all such workers, were done/undertaken by the occupier/manager.
4. The complainant has stated that he conducted inspection in the factory premises on 12.09.2012 at about 11:30 hours and accordingly upon finding the contravention of the statutory mandates by the factory owner as mentioned above, he filed the complaint on 10.12.2012 in the Trial Court.
5. Petitioner has pleaded in the Trial Court for his discharge on the ground that the complaint was lodged by the complainant beyond the statutory period of limitation and thus the said complaint dated 10.12.2012 would not be maintainable against him, and he should be discharged from the said case.
6. Both the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge have denied such prayer of the petitioner. Petitioner is now before this court with the similar prayer that since the complaint would not be maintainable in law, in view of the fact that the same has been filed beyond the statutory period of limitation, the proceedings against him on the basis of the same would not be tenable in the eye of law and also would be abuse process of court which should be remedied by this court it is exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C, 1973.
7. The State has been represented by Mr. Agarwala, being with Mr. Bose. It has been submitted that the State that the impugned judgment and order is proper and legal, within the period of statutory limitation and would require no interference by this Court. For the rest, the matter has been left to the discretion of the court.
8. The governing provision Section 106 of the Factories Act, 1948, which may be extracted as below:-
'106. Limitation of prosecutions.-No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this 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
AI
The period of 'three months' as envisaged in Section 106 of the Factories Act, 1948, would mean and be similar to a period of three congestive months in the English calendar.
The court ruled that a complaint under the Rajasthan Factories Act must be filed within three months of the inspector's knowledge of the offence, failing which the prosecution is invalid.
It is also crystal clear that the law with regard to filing of the complaint under the Factories Act is within a period of three months from the date of commission of the offence or from the date of ....
The main legal point established is that under Section 106 of the Factories Act, the complaint must be filed within three months of the date of occurrence or the date of knowledge of the occurrence, ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
