ORDER
Amareshwar Sahay, J.
1. Since the parties have already completed pleadings and as such, this application is being disposed of at the state of 'Admission' itself.
2. In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 19.3.2004 as well as the entire criminal proceedings against them in C-2 Case No. 1187 of 2004 whereby, the cognizance for an offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 has been taken against the petitioners.
3. The short point which has been urged by Mr. Mazumdar is that Section 106 of the Factories Act prescribes a period of limitation of three months only for filing a complaint for commission of the offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act and the period of three months has to be counted from the alleged date of occurrence.
4. In the present case, though the date of occurrence is 3.9.2003 but the complaint was filed on 19.3.2004 i.e. much after the period of limitation of 90 days as prescribed under Section 106 of the Factories Act. Therefore, Mr. Mazumdar submits that the order taking cognizance dated 19.3.2004 is without jurisdiction as also barred by limitation. For ready reference, Section 106 of the Factories Act is quoted hereinbelow:
Section 106 : Limitation of prosecution.-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.
For the purpose of this section-
(a) in the case of a continuing offence, the period of limitation shall be computed with reference to every point of time during which the offence continues;
(b) where for the performance of any act time is granted or extended on an application made by the occupier of manager of a factory, the period of limitation shall be computed from the date on which the time so granted or extended expired.
5. Admittedly, even according to the complaint petition lodged by the respondent No. 2, the alleged occurrence took place on 3.9.2003 and the complaint was filed on 19.3.2004 and on that very date itself, the cognizance was taken under Section 92 of the Factories Act by the learned Magistrate.
6. From bare perusal of Section 105 of the Factories Act, as quoted above, it is absolutely clear that the law provides that the complaint with regard to the commission of the offence under the Act has to be made within a period of three months from the date of commission of the offence or from the date of knowledge of the commission of the said offence. There is no dispute of the fact in the present case that the date of alleged occurrence was 3.9.2003 whereas the complaint was filed much beyond the period of limitation i.e. on 19.3.2004, therefore, apparently the impugned order taking cognizance was barred by limitation.
7. Accordingly, I hold that the order taking cognizance dated 19.3.2004 under Section 92 of the Factories Act against the petitioner was beyond the jurisdiction of the learned Court below because the same was barred by the Law of Limitation prescribed under Section 106 of the Factories Act.
8. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. The order taking cognizance dated 19.3.2004 as well as the entire criminal prosecution against the petitioner is hereby quashed.