Amareshwar Sahay, J.

1. In the present application the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order dated December 23, 1998 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, in C/2 case No. 1078 of 1998 whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act.)

2. The facts in short of the case are that the opposite party No. 2, Sri Awadhcsh Kumar Singh, Factory Inspector, Anchal No. 1 (complainant) submitted a written report on December 21, 1998 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, alleging therein that Wood Craft Training Centre, Jojobera is a factory within the meaning of Section 2(m) of the Act. It was stated that in the said factory, manufacturing of the packing boxes, furniture etc. were going on and 30 workers were engaged for the said purpose. It was further staled that during the enquiry, the complainant came to know that Sri. K.C. Majumdar, who was an officer of the TELCO Ltd., was the occupier of the said factory whereas Sri. S.N. Banerjce was the secretary of the said factory. It was alleged that the factory was being run since last 15 years without having any valid licence as envisaged under Section 6 of the Act. It was alleged that the petitioners did not get the map of the factory approved by the Chief Inspector of the Factories which was violation of Rule 3 of the Bihar Factories Rules, 1950. The complainant alleged that the accused parsons had committed offences punishable under Section 92 of the Act, for violation of the provisions of Act and Rules i. e. for violation of Section 6 of Factories Act, 1948, Rule 3 of Bihar Factories Rules, 1950, Section 61 of the Act read with Rule 79, Section 38 of the Act read with Rule 62, Section 45 read with Rules 64 and 80 of the Bihar Factories Rules.

3. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, by his order dated December 28, 1998, after perusing the prosecution report as well as the other documents enclosed with the same, took cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 92 of the Act, against the petitioners and issued summons for their appearance.

4. Being aggrieved by the said order of taking cognizance, the petitioners have filed the present application for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings as well as the order taking cognizance.

5. Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, has firstly submitted that the order taking cognizance is bad and illegal, as before taking cognizance the previous sanction in writing of the Inspector has not been obtained, as envisaged under Section 105 of the Act. In support of his submission he has relied on a decision reported in 1998 (1) SCC 205.

6. The second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that concern in question i. e. Wood Craft Training Centre, does not come under the purview of the definition of the Factory, as envisaged under Section 2(m) of the Act and therefore, no prosecution could have been launched, for violation of provisions of the Act or Rules. It is further submitted that Wood Craft Training Centre is run by the Lions Club, Jamshedpur and the petitioners are in no way connected with the affairs of the said training Centre. Therefore, cognizance taken against them is liable to be quashed.

7. To appreciate the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is relevant to quote Section 105(1) of the Factories Act, 1948 which reads as under.

"105(1) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act except on complaint by, or with the previous sanction in writing of, an Inspector".

8. The submissions of Mr. Singh is that previous sanction in writing of an Inspector for filing the complaint was a sine qua non for taking cognizance for the offence under the Act, cannot be accepted because Section 105(1) of the Act clearly speaks, that either the complaint has to be made in writing by an