Point of Law: It is also crystal clear that the law with regard to filing of the complaint under the Factories Act is within a period of three months from the date of commission of the offence or from the date of knowledge of the occurrence.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.

1. Heard Mrs. Vani Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mrs. Priya Shrestha, learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the opposite party-State.

2. These petitions have 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 these matters have been heard.

3. In these two petitions, common question of law are involved and that is why both the petitions have been heard together.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioner no. 1 in both the cases has left for his heavenly abode and death certificate is brought on record.

5. In view of her such submission, let the name of petitioner no. 1 in both the cases be deleted.

6. In Cr. M.P. No. 1204 of 2016, the prayer is made for quashing the order dated 02.01.2016 passed in G.O. No. 489/2015 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saraikela, whereby, cognizance under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 has been taken against the petitioners.

In Cr. M.P. No. 1205 of 2016, the prayer is made for quashing the order dated 06.01.2016 passed in G.O. No. 4/2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saraikela, whereby, cognizance under Sections 92 and 96-A of the Factories Act, 1948 has been taken against the petitioners.

7. In Cr. M.P. No. 1204 of 2016, the case was instituted stating therein that Bharat Bhushan Prasad, Factory Inspector, Saraikela, Kharsawan submitted the offence report before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saraikela stating therein that the petitioners had flouted the provisions contained under Section 7A(1) of the Factories Act, 1948 and Rule 55A(2) of Jharkhand Factories Regulations, 1950 resulting of which an accident occurred in the premise of M/s Usha Martyn Ltd. (Usha Allies and Steel) on 08.07.2015 in the factory premise and one engineer namely Pravin Kumar had died in accident.

In Cr. M.P. No. 1205 of 2016, the case was instituted stating therein that Bharat Bhushan Prasad, Factory Inspector, Saraikela, Kharsawan submitted the offence report before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saraikela stating therein that the petitioners had flouted the provisions contained under Section 7A(2) of the Factories Act, 1948 and Rule 55A(2) of Jharkhand Factories Regulations, 1950 resulting of which an accident occurred in the premise of M/s Usha Martyn Ltd. (Usha Allies and Steel) on 06.05.2015 in the factory premise and 9 staff members got injured who were sent to TATA Main Hospital, Jamshedpur and 4 staff members died in course of treatment due to burn injury. It was further alleged that in the SMS Plant of the factory where there is high possibility of fire no fire resistant cloth have been provided to the staff member.

8. Mrs. Vani Kumari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that these petitions are fit to be allowed on the point of limitation as under Section 106 of the Factories Act, the period of limitation prescribed for three months for filing the complaint, under Section 92 of the Factories Act from the date of occurrence. She further submits that in Cr. M.P. No. 1204 of 2016, the date of occurrence was 08.07.2015 and the Deputy Chief Factory Inspector visited the place of occurrence on 09.07.2015. She also submits that the Factory Inspector made a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saraikela on 30.12.2015 i.e. after 5 months from the information came to the knowledge of the Factory Inspector, which is not permitted under law. She submits that three months period from the date of occurrence completed on 08.10.2015. She further submits that in Cr. M.P. No. 1205 of 2016, the date of occurrence was 06.05.2015 and the Deputy Chief Factory Inspector visited the place of occurrence on the same day i.e. on 06.05.2015. She also submits that the Factory I