This appeal has arisen out of the order dated 16th January, 1969 passed by a Magistrate 1st Class Saharanpur dismissing the complaint filed against the respondent for his prosecution under Section 92 of the Factories Act.

2. The prosecution case very briefly stated, was as follows :

Sri M. C. Mathur Inspector of Factories Meerut Region, Meerut, inspected M/s. New INternational Industries Pacca Bazar Saharanpur on 10th May 67 and found that the factory was committing a breach of Rule 3 of the rules framed under the Factories Act punishable under Section 92 thereof. A complaint was therefore submitted by Mr. M. C. Mathur to the District Magistrate Saharanpur praying that cognizance of the offence may be taken by him. The complaint bears no date but it was sent to the District Magistrate through a letter dated 2nd August 67. It can therefore be presumed that the complaint had been prepared on or before 2nd of August 1967. The complaint was transferred to the City Magistrate for disposal under orders dated 4th August 67 passed by the Additional District Magistrate. The first order on the order sheet of the court of City Magistrate Saharanpur is dated 26th of August 67. By this order the learned Magistrate directed that the case be registered and the respondent be summoned for 16th September 67. It appears that after appearance before the City Magistrate, the respondent raised an objection that his prosecution was barred by time as it was on 26th of August 67, i.e., subsequent to the statutory period of three months, that the cognizance was taken by the Court. This objection found favour with the learned City Magistrate with the result he dismissed the complaint as barred by time. Feeling aggrieved against it the State of U.P. has come up in appeal before this Court.

3. I have heard learned counsel on either side and have also perused record of the case. The relevant par of Section 106 of the Factories Act, on which reliance has been placed by the Court below for dismissing the complaint as barred by time, read as follows :

"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."

A perusal of the above would clearly reveal that what the section requires is that the complaint should be made within three months. Once the complaint is made within that period cognizance thereof can be taken any time thereafter. This was the view expressed by this Court in case Gopal Das Saxeria v. State, AIR 1955 All 511 = (1955 Cri.L.J. 1232).

4. A perusal of the judgment of the trial Court indicates that it was confused on the point whether the section requires the cognizance of the case being taken within three months or it required only the complaint being made within that period. In any case if on an examination of the relevant material on record it is found that the complaint was made within statutory period of three months, the order passed by the learned Magistrate must be held to be erroneous.

5. According to the allegations made in the complaint, it was on 10th May, 67 that the Inspector came to know about the commission of the offence by the respondent. It would therefore follow that the complaint could be made till 9th of August 67. A perusal of the record reveals that the complaint duly drafted and signed was forwarded by the Factory Inspector to the District Magistrate through his letter dated 2nd August 67, and, on 4th of August the Additional District Magistrate endorsed an order thereon transferring the complaint to the Court of City Magistrate for disposal. In view of the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate there can be not an iota of doubt that the complaint had reached the Additional District Magistrate on or before 4th of August 67. Since the limitation for filing the complaint extended up to 9th of August 67 it must be held that the complaint