Judgment

1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan under Section 378(1) & (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment and order dated 20.11.1998 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balotra in Criminal Case No. 270/1996, whereby the accused–respondent, namely Mitha Lal Maheshwari, Director, M/s M. Processing House Pvt. Ltd., Balotra, was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 21 of the Factories Act, 1948 read with Rule 92.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case leading to the filing of the present appeal are that an accident occurred on 04.01.1996 in the factory of the accused–respondent, wherein a labourer, namely Arvind Kumar, sustained serious injuries while working on a machine allegedly not fitted with proper safety guards. Information of the incident was furnished to the office of the Inspector of Factories and Boilers on 05.01.1996. Thereafter, inspection was carried out on 18.01.1996 and an enquiry under Section 106 of the Factories Act was undertaken, which culminated on 23.02.1996. Upon completion of enquiry, it was found that the accused–respondent had contravened the provisions of Section 21 of the Factories Act. Consequently, after issuance of show cause notice, a complaint came to be filed before the competent court on 22.05.1996. The learned trial court, however, acquitted the accused–respondent vide judgment dated 20.11.1998 primarily on the ground that the complaint was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has assailed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal, contending that the learned trial court has erred in law as well as on facts in holding that the complaint was barred by limitation. It is submitted that as per the settled legal position, the period of limitation is to be reckoned from the date of completion of enquiry and acquisition of knowledge regarding commission of the offence, which in the present case is 23.02.1996. It is further submitted that the complaint filed on 22.05.1996 was well within the prescribed period of three months. Learned Public Prosecutor has further argued that the learned trial court has failed to properly appreciate the statutory scheme and the binding precedents governing the issue of limitation and has thus erroneously acquitted the accused–respondent.

4. Heard learned Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the accused–respondent. Perused the impugned judgment and the material available on record. Upon due consideration of the rival submissions, this Court proceeds to examine the correctness, legality and propriety of the findings recorded by the learned trial court.

5. The learned trial court acquitted the accused–respondent primarily on the ground that the complaint came to be filed after expiry of the prescribed period of limitation of three months from the date of the incident. The incident took place on 04.01.1996 and, on the very next day, the Inspector of Factories was informed about the same, which is evident from the record. Thereafter, an enquiry was commenced in terms of Section 106, which is mandatory in nature. Upon completion of the enquiry, the complaint was required to be submitted before the competent court within the stipulated period of three months. Admittedly, the enquiry concluded on 23.02.1996, and the complaint was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Thus, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused–respondent, which, in the considered view of this Court, is in consonance with the spirit of law. There is no force in the appeal, and the same stands dismissed.

6. All pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

7. The record be returned to the learned trial court.