In this case the Inspector of Factories inspected the factory in question on 5th October, 1950 and found that the accused had failed to construct a pucca dust proof husk chamber as required by section 14 of the Factories Act. The failure to do this is an offence punishable under section 92 of the Act. Under section 106 of the Act 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 the Inspector. A complaint for this offence must be laid within three months from the above date, i.e., 5th October, 1950. But the complaint was laid on 15th March, 1951 and it is dearly beyond three months. But it is argued that the Inspector visited the factory again on 24th January, 1951, when also he found the above defect and the complaint being within three months from the later date, the complaint is within time. In support of this contention a decision of Subba Rao, J., in Crl.R.C. No. 417 of 1950, is cited. In my view, the period of three months is to be calculated from the time the Inspector had first knowledge of the offence. Otherw