Honble SHETHNA, J. – Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The State has challenged in this appeal the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali dismissing the complaint filed by the State under Section 92 of the Factories Act only on the short ground of limitation and acquitted the respondents accused.

(2). The learned Magistrate held that the complainant came to know about the accident of 31.5.88 on 2.6.88 and, therefore, the complaint ought to have been filed on or before 1.9.88 under the Act. Period of three months is provided for filing complaint. Instead of that the complaint was filed by his successor, Senior Inspector, in this office Shri V.D Varani on 22.9.88. Thus, the complaint was time barred by 21 days. Therefore, it was beyond the period of limitation and, therefore, no cog- nizance can be taken by him.

(3). Learned Magistrate ought to have appreciated the fact that Shri Moondra, predecessor in the office of the complainant, inspected the factory premises only on 23.6.88 and submitted his report. Mere intimation or information of the accident is not enough. The complainant has to go to the factory and enquire into the acci- dent and submit his report rega

Click Here to Read the rest of this document