JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jitendra Pandey, learned counsel for the State.

2. This petition has been taken through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

3. The petitioners have filed this petition for quashing the entire criminal proceedings initiated as against the petitioners in connection with C/2 Case No. 470 of 2013, including the order dated 31.03.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jamshedpur, whereby, cognizance under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 has been taken against the petitioners.

4. A prosecution report was filed by the opposite party no.2 in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur on 07.10.2013 which was registered as C/2 Case No.470 of 2013 arraying the petitioners as accused, alleging therein that the petitioners have contravened the provision of Subsection (2)(c) of Section 7(A) of the Factories Act, 1948 read with Sub-rule (3) of Rule 55(A) of the Jharkhand Factories Rules, 1950 due to which on 26.06.2013, a worker namely Prashant Kumar, Rigger, who was passing through fabrication yard, got pressed under a Double Cone Valve, causing serious bodily injury to him, which ultimately resulted to his death. The petitioners have been arrayed as accused in their capacity as occupier and Manager respectively of M/s. Tata Steel Limited.

5. The only point has been raised in this petition by Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that Section 106 of the Factories Act prescribes the period of limitation for three months for filing the complaint, under Section 92 of the Factories Act from the date of occurrence. He submits that the date of occurrence is 26.06.2013 and on 07.10.2013 opposite party no.2 inspected the place of occurrence and subsequently required information was furnished. He further submits that the incident was reported on 27.06.2013 and the complaint was filed on 07.10.2013. He further submits that three months' time from the date of occurrence comes to the date on 25.09.2013 and on that day 90 days' has been completed from the date of occurrence. He also submits that the complaint has been filed after 90 days which is against the mandatory provision made under Section 106 of the Factories Act. He further submits that there is no provision of condonation of delay. The petitioners are Occupier and Manager of M/s. Tata Steel Limited.

6. Mr. Jitendra Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the State by way of referring Section 106 of the Factories Act submits that the enquiry was going on and there is no illegality in the summon order.

7. For ready reference, Section 106 of the Factories Act reads as under:-

“106. Limitation of prosecutions.—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 came to the knowledge of an Inspector.

Provided that where the offence consists of disobeying a written order made by an Inspector, complaint thereof may be made within six months of the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed.

(a) in the case of a continuing offence, the period of limitation shall be computed with reference to every point of time during which the offence continues;

(b) where for the performance of any act time is granted or extended on an application made by the occupier or manager of a factory, the period of limitation shall be computed from the date on which the time so granted or extended expired.”

8. On perusal of the complaint petition, specifically the statements made in paragraph Nos. 2 and 3, it is crystal clear that it was in the knowledge of the Inspector that the occurrence took place on 26.06.2013 and the complaint