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.

Order

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the niceties of the matter.

2. The petitioner was convicted by the learned trial Court for the offence under Section 33 and 88 of Rajasthan Factories Act, 1948 and for violation of Rule 101 of Rajasthan Factories Rule, 1951, he was convincted under Section 92 of Rajasthan Factories Act, 1948 .

3. The record reveals that one labourer - Kishan Lal Rawat died on 28.02.1994 while working in the factory of the petitioner. He provided information of the above to the office of the respondent department on 05.03.1994 in prescribed Form No.20. An inquiry was conducted by the complainant and on 31.03.1994, he found that there was contravention of the penal provision of Factories Act. As a matter of fact, he filed the complaint in the Court of learned ACJM No.2 on 27.06.1994. Ex.-P/18 is the complaint revealing its presentation. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on the very same day.

4. The plea raised by on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner has a substance that since the complaint was filed belatedly, therefore, the Court was not competent to take cognizance punishable under this Act. Section 106 of the Factories Act, 1948 envisages that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act unless complaint thereof is made within a period of three months of the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of an Inspector. Though, there is a clause for relaxation but that is not relatable to the present case nor it is the case of the prosecutor. The fact remains that the incident occurred on 28.02.1994 and the Inspector got the information on 05.03.1994. He concluded his inquiry on 31.03.1994 but the complaint came to be submitted on 27.06.1994. As per the mandate of law the complaint has to be submitted within a period of three months of the date on which the Inspector got the knowledge of the incident. Indisputably, the Inspector received the information on 05.03.1994, alongwith, Form No.20 and as such the prosecution was launched beyond the period of three months.

5. In view of the above, the very foundation of the prosecution's case regarding taking cognizance of the offence and proceeding further with the matter falls on the earth since it is done against the mandate of law. An error of law committed at the inspection, cannot be perpetuated by passing legal order at a subsequent stage.

6. The submission of Shri V.S. Rajpurohit learned counsel for the State that since the Inspector concluded the inquiry on 31.03.1994, therefore, he was well within statutory authority to submit the complaint from that date and as per him, the complaint had been filed within stipulated period. Computing it from 31.03.1994, the submission of learned counsel for the State is devoid of any force of law since law mandates filing of the complaint within a period of three months of getting knowledge and not within three months from conclusion of inquiry. As a matter of fact the Inspector had received the information on 05.03.1994, thus, the plea raised on behalf of the respondent is not sustainable.

7. In view of the above, the instant revision petition is allowed.

8. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 06.02.2001 passed by the learned ACJM No.1, Chittorgarh in Criminal Case No.405/94 is hereby quahsed and set aside. The petitioner is acquitted from the charges. His bail bonds are discharged.

9. The record be sent back.