ORDER :

I.A. No. 3154 of 2019

1. Learned counsel Mr. Kaustav Panda, appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Tapas Roy learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 2, the Factory Inspector, State of Jharkhand, are present.

2. The present criminal miscellaneous petition is directed for quashing the order dated 29.08.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, in connection with C/2 Case No. 405 of 2012, for the offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act, by which the learned Judicial Magistrate, took cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act against the petitioner.

3. It has been pointed out that the allegation as set out in the prosecution case was that the complainant had inspected the factory of the petitioner M/s. Narbheram Motors (P) Ltd. situated at Narbheram Building, Main Road, Bistupur, Jamshedpur on 09.04.2012 and during the course of inspection it was found that;

i) The factory was not as per the sanctioned layout,

ii) At the time of inspection the fire extinguishers were not in sufficient quantity installed,

iii) Medicines and other equipments were also not available,

iv) The workers of the factory had also stated that identity cards were not distributed &

v) Register was not produced inspite of the direction,

and on this ground, the complaint was filed on 29.08.2012 before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the prosecution case is bad in law because it is time barred and the cognizance taking order dated 29.08.2012 which is under challenged does not speak about any observation with respect to condoning the delay as provided in the proviso of Section 106 of the Factories Act and therefore, the impugned order dated 29.08.2012 is badly hit by the mandatory provision of Section 106 of the Factories Act under which the prosecution is to be filed within three months from the date of the knowledge of the commission of the offence of the inspection.

5. On the other hand the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the cognizance taking order dated 29.08.2012 is just and in accordance to law and no illegality is found as the inspector of factories had inspected the factory in question on 09.04.2012 and found several irregularities as mentioned in the prosecution report and it is a violation of Rule 3 Rule 62 and Rule 64 of the Jharkhand Factories, Rule 1950, neither the identity card were distributed to the workers nor the register was submitted before the Factory Inspector and therefore, it was a continuous offence as provided under the proviso of clause of Section 106 of the Factories Act and therefore, there is absolutely no bar taking cognizance and the learned Trial Court has rightly taken the cognizance on the basis of the materials available on record and therefore, this Cr.M.P. is fit to be dismissed being devoid of merit.

6. Having heard the parties perused the records of this case.

7. It is an admitted case of the prosecution that in the institution of the prosecution case vide C/2 Case No. 405 of 2012, was time barred which is evident from the copy of the prosecution report itself which is dated 21.08.2012. It is further admitted case of the prosecution that the date of inspection is on 09.04.2012 and the complaint was filed 29.08.2012 i.e. after more than four months of the inspection. It is found that as per Section 106 of the Factories Act the complaint should have been filed within three months from the date of which the alleged commission of the offence comes to the knowledge of the Factory Inspector.

8. In the present case it has come to the knowledge of the Factory Inspector on 09.04.2012 and the case has been instituted on 29.08.2012 and admittedly the complaint is time barred and the complaint petition was filed admitting the delay and it is further found from the o