The main legal point established in the judgment is that the specific provisions of the Factories Act, including the requirement of prior sanction for prosecution and the limitation of prosecution, prevail over the provisions of the Cr PC.

D.G.R. Patnaik, J.

1. Petitioners have invoked the inherent Jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr PC. praying for quashing the order dated 7.5.2005 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in C/2 Case No. 1621 of 2005.whereby cognizance of the offences under Section 92 of the Factories Act was taken and summons were ordered to be issued against the petitioners directing them to appear and face trial for the said offence.

2. The case was registered before the Court below on the basis of a petition of complaint dated 6.5.2005 filed by the Inspector of Factories on 7.5.2005. The complainant has sought to prosecute the petitioners for the offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 on the accusation that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 being the occupier and manager respectively of the factory, namely, M/s. S.T.P. Limited, carrying out the work of Tar Distillation, and the contractor, namely, petitioner No. 3 had violated Rule 95(xii) and Rule 55-A(2) of the Jharkhand Factories Rules, 1950 by failing to provide for safety measures to the labourers at the works site. It is alleged that two workers employed in the Establishment had suffered death on account of failure of the occupier/manager and the contractor to provide safety measures for the workmen while engaging

them in hazardous works. On receipts of information about the accident, the complainant/Inspector of Factories conducted an inquiry and had found that the

accidental death of the workers had occurred on account of the lapses on the part of the present petitioners to provide safety measures as required under Rule 95(xii) and Rule 55-A(2) of the Jharkhand Factories Rules, 1950.

3. On receipt of the complaint on 7.5.2005. learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act against the petitioners and transferred the case to the Court of Smt. Kusum Kumari, Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur for trial and disposal.

4. Petitioners have challenged the order of cognizance on the ground that the learned Court below could not have taken cognizance of the offence beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 106 of the Factories Act and continuation of the proceeding against the petitioners therefore, is bad in law.

Shri T.R. Bajaj. learned senior counsel, arguing on behalf of the petitioners, explains that even according to the averments in the complaint petition, information of the alleged offence was communicated to and received by the complainant Inspector of Factories on 31.1.2005. The complaint, according to the learned Counsel, should have been filed thereafter within a period of three months from the date when the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of the complainant, but the complaint was filed beyond the period of

limitation of three months on 7.5.2005. The complainant has neither offered any explanation for the delay in lodging the complaint, nor has invited attention of the learned Court below with his prayer for condoning the delay. Learned Counsel explains further that according to Section 105 of the Factories Act, the complainant who is the Inspector of factories, was himself competent to lodge the complaint and also to accord sanction for prosecution. Learned Counsel explains further that the Factories Act, 1948 being a special Act, contains provisions relating to the cognizance and trial for the offence and for limitation of prosecution and therefore, the provisions of Section 468 of the Cr PC can not be applied for computing the period of limitation in the instant case.

5. A counter - affidavit has been filed by the complainant/opposite-party No. 2wherein while acknowledging delay in lodging the complaint, he has sought to explain that the delay was caused on account of delay in obtaining internal administrative instructions and guidelines and was not intentional. Opposite-party No. 2 has further sought to explain that appropriate sanction from the State