Raghubar Dayal, J.

[1] The Chief Inspector of Factories, U.P., addressed a complaint to the Court of City Magistrate, Agra, in August 1950, against Gopal Das Saksaria and Brij Mohan Jha for an offence under Section 92, Factories Act, 1948. He sent the typed and signed complaint with a covering letter to the District Magistrate, Agra, requesting him to inform the Court concerned for further action and informing him that a copy of the complaint had also been sent to the City Magistrate, Agra, direct.

The District Magistrate, Agra, forwarded this complaint to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Firozabad, for trial on 1-9-1950. It is not known when this complaint reached the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Firozabad, but he appeals to have ordered the registering of the case and the issue of summons to the accused on 6-9-1950.

[2] Meanwhile an unsigned copy of the complaint was sent to the City Magistrate, Agra, direct by the Chief Inspector of Factories. The City Magistrate forwarded it to the Factory Magistrate for disposal on 28-8-1950. It is not known again when this reached the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Firozabad. It was on 6-9-1950, that a case was registered on this complaint and the accused were ordered to be summoned for 28-9-1950. The summons was actually issued on 9-9-1950. This date has been wrongly read by Sri S. Goswamiji, who was the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Firozabad, as 1-9-1950,

[3] Objection was taken on behalf of the accused that the trial was bad in law as it was in contravention of Section 106, Factories Act, which is:

"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:

Provided that where the offence consists of disobeying a written order made by an Inspector, complaint thereof may be made within six months of the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed."

[4] The learned Magistrate rejected the contention and held that the complaint received through the City Magistrate has been received within three months by a competent Magistrate and that therefore it could hot be said that a proper complaint had not been made to the City Magistrate within the period of limitation. The accused then went up in revision to the District Magistrate, Agra who did not agree with the view of the Factory Magistrate and made this reference to this Court.

[5] A learned Single Judge of this Court referred the case to the Division Bench on account of the importance of the question raised and an apparent difference of opinion between two learned Judges of this Court on the interpretation of Section 106, Factories Act.

[6] We have been referred to three cases. The first is -- 'Baldev Das v. The State', AIR 1952 All 937 (A). In this case the offence was detected oh 13-8-1949. It is not known when the complaint actually reached the City Magistrate, who passed his first order on 5-12-1949. It was contended in the case that the complaint was, in fact, made to the City Magistrate on 5-12-1949, that is on the day on which it was put before him and he took cognizance thereof. Brij Mohan Lall J. did not deal with the question whether Section 106, Factories Act, required the cognizance of the offence to" be taken within three months or merely required that complaint be made within three months of the detection of the offence. He held that the complaint must ,be held to be made on 5-12-1949, and that, therefore, it was not made within three months of the detection and that, therefore, the Magistrate could not take cognizance of it. The view expressed cannot be said to have laid emphasis on the question of cognizance being taken- within three months.

[7] The next case is -- 'Madan Lal v. The State', AIR 1954 All 27 (B). In this case no complaint was made within three months and naturally no cognizance could have been taken within that period. Randhir Singh J. ment