Prosecution beyond three years barred.

This appeal is against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, West Tanhore Division, Tanjore, setting aside theconviction of the respondent, accused under rules 3 and 6 of the Rules framed under the Madras Factories Act. The accused has been running a factory known as Swami Motor Transport Limited and he has been having a workshop therein. In the workshop he has been building bodies for buses and repairing automobiles and in connection therewith he was also having welding and smithy work, etc. The accused reconstructed his building without conforming to the Rules. He put a low roof in the premises of the factory and for this he should have obtained the previous permission in writing from the State Government or the Chief Inspector of Factories by submitting the necessary plans and estimates. He also failed to obtain the permission in writing from the State Government or the Chief Inspector of Factories for the extension of the factory, namely, the installation of wood-working machinery driven by electric motors to total load of 12 h.p. in the factory. By having installed the wood-work machinery he is said to have contravened the provisions of section 6 read with rule 3. The accused also failed to get his license amended when the horse-power that was utilised in the factory exceeded the horse-power that was originally granted to him, which was 14.9 h.p. He began to use in his factory more than 30 h.p motors By doing so he is said to have contravened the provisions of section 6 of the Act read with rule 6 of the Rules. The previous sanction for prosecution was obtained from the relevant authority under Exhibit P-9 dated 3rd May, 1956 and he was prosecuted actually on 11th May, 1956, for the three offences he is said to have committed as stated above.

The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tanjore, convicted the accused under section 92 of the Factories Act under all the three counts and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 50 and in default to simple imprisonment for two weeks under the first count to pay a fine of Rs. 40 in default to simple imprisonment for 12 days under the second count, and to pay a fine of Rs. 25, in default to simple imprisonment for one week under the third count. Against this order, the accused preferred an appeal to the learned Sessions Judge of West Tanjore. Under the first count the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to a fine of Rs. 25, in default to one week’s simple imprisonment. But on the second and third counts the learned Judge acquitted the accused. There is no appeal preferred against the confirmation of the conviction on the first count. This appeal is by the Public Prosecutor for the State against the acquittal of the accused under the second and third counts.

The learned Public Prosecutor urges in support of the appeal that the offences under the second and third counts are continuing offences and there can be no limitation for any prosecution. Section 106 of the Factories Act lays down that:

“No Court shall take cognisance 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”.

In this case, the first time when the officers charged with the duty of inspecting the factory came to know of the failure of the accused to comply with the provisions of the Act and the Rules, was on 16th January, 1956. There was no doubt a second inspection by P.W.1 in the case on 3rd March, 1956 and the charge was actually laid on nth May, 1956. There can be no controversy with regard to the fact as to when exactly the contravention came to the knowledge of the Inspecting Officer, P.W.2, on 16th January, 1956. If a second officer inspected and came to know of the commission of the offence on 3rd March, 1956 it cannot take away the fact of the knowledge having been brought home to the officers charged with the duty of inspection on 16th