The interpretation of time limitation under Section 106 of the Factories Act, 1948, and the knowledge of the incident by the Inspector of Factories were central to the court's decision.

This Cr.M.P. has been filed for quashing the order dated 21.04.2003 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chas at Bokaro in connection with F.A. Case No.02 of 2003 by which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance under Rule 55A(1) and 55A(2) of Jharkhand Factories Rules, 1950.

2. It is submitted that the learned Magistrate has not applied judicial mind while taking cognizance because it is apparent that Rule 55A(1) and 55A(2) of Jharkhand Factories Rules, 1950 do not have penal provisions. For the violation of aforesaid rules, the punishment prescribed is under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948. Learned C.J.M. has passed the impugned order without application of judicial mind and he did not bother to go through the relevant provisions of law before passing the impugned order. The cognizance cannot be taken in a mechanical way and person against whom summons have been directed to be issued should not be put to rigor of trial in such circumstances. The cognizance taken by learned C.J.M. is bad in law and same is liable to be quashed.

3. The second point which the learned counsel has taken is that the incident took place on 08.01.2003 and it was duly communicated in the prescribed form on 10.01.2003. The Inspector of Factories has filed complaint on 21.04.2003. Section 106 of the Factories Act says that 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 come to the knowledge of an Inspector. The accident which took place on 08.01.2003 was duly informed in prescribed form on 10.01.2003 but the complaint was filed on 21.04.2003, i.e. after lapse of three months and therefore, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate should not have taken cognizance and should have considered the presentation of complaint as time barred.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the prayer.

5. I have gone through the impugned order and documents placed before me. It appears that the complaint has been filed for violation of Rule 55A(1) and 55A(2) of Jharkhand Factories Rules, 1950 which are punishable under Section 92 of Factories Act, 1948. The aforesaid provision of law finds mentioned at the concluding para of the prosecution report. The learned Magistrate has mentioned the rules which have been violated but did not mention the penal provision contained under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948. Before adverting final opinion, I would like to mention that impugned order has been passed in a case of Government complaint. ProvisoA to section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure give relaxation or exemption to public servant acting or purporting act in discharge of his official duty or if court has made the complaint. What I mean to say is that in a Government complaint, if it is presented in writing, examination of complainant on Solemn Affirmation is exempted and the Court can take cognizance. Therefore, the Magistrate is supposed to look into the prosecution report for passing an order under Section 204 Cr.P.C. On the basis of materials placed before the Magistrate, if he finds prima facie material to proceed further, he may pass order under Section 204 Cr.P.C. directing to issue summons to the accused to face trial. Order passed under Section 204 Cr.P.C. simply suggests that the Court has found material to proceed further against the accused. It is not required that the Court should indicate as to what offence by which of the accused has been committed. In the case at hand, the order impugned suggests that the Magistrate has gone through the prosecution report, but the penal provision i.e. Section 92 of the Factories Act has not been indicated. I do not think that due to nonmentioning of penal provision, the order impugned can be considered as bad in law.

6. Learned counsel has further pointed out that the cognizance is bad in law because it was time barred. The occurrence took place on 08