Skip to content


Public Prosecutor Vs. Inturi Vishnumurthi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1962)ILLJ176AP
AppellantPublic Prosecutor
Respondentinturi Vishnumurthi
Excerpt:
.....is not said to have been lodged on 21 july 1959, it is within the time from the date of cognizance of the complaint by the magistrate, for it is well settled that in computing the period of limitation, the date on which the offence came to the notice of the inspector, is to be excluded......245(1), criminal procedure code. the appeal is directed against this order.3. admittedly the date of offence is 23 april 1959 and the complaint was lodged on 21 july 1959 though it appears that the magistrate has taken cognizance of the same on 23 july 1959. relying on a decision of the allahabad high court in a.l.r. 1952 all. 937, the magistrate has held that as the complaint was not filed within three months, it was not maintainable. obviously the finding is incorrect; for it has been brought on record that the complaint was actually lodged on 21 july 1959 and there was an endorsement by the head clerk of the magistrate's court showing that the complaint was received on 22 july 1959 at 4-30 p.m. the contention of the learned magistrate that it did not save limitation, does not.....
Judgment:

Sharfuddin Ahmed, J.

1. The respondent herein, one Intoori Vishnumurthi, occupier-cum-manager of Intoori Vishnumurthi Tobacco Company, situated at Pandaripuram, Chillakaluripeta, was chargesheeted for contravening' Section 18 and Rules 74 and 36, Section 61 and Rule 79 and Section 45 and Rule 63 of the Factories Act of 1948 and rules framed there under.

2. It was alleged that when the Additional Inspector of Factories (P.W. 1), Narsaraopet, visited the premises of the said tobacco company on 23 April 1959 at about 10-20 a.m. he found that the respondent had failed to frame a notice of periods of work for adult workers in form No. 11, both in English and Telugu, showing the daily hours of work, weekly holidays and scheme of changing of Bhift for each group. Secondly he noted that the respondent had not made arrangements for supply of good drinking water at the rate of one gallon per worker per day with dust' proof covers as provided in the rules. Lastly it came to his notice that the respondent had failed to provide medicines as prescribed under the rules with a first aid box and keep it in charge of a responsible person trained in first aid treatment. Accordingly a complaint was filed against the respondent in the Court of the Additional Munsif Magistrate, Narsaraopet. The learned magistrate after examining the complainant (P.W. 1) and a witness on behalf of the respondent, came to the conclusion that the complaint was not filed within the prescribed period and as such it was barred by limitation. In that view without commenting on the other aspect of the case, he dismissed the complaint acquitting the respondent under Section 245(1), Criminal Procedure Code. The appeal is directed against this order.

3. Admittedly the date of offence is 23 April 1959 and the complaint was lodged on 21 July 1959 though it appears that the magistrate has taken cognizance of the same on 23 July 1959. Relying on a decision of the Allahabad High Court in A.L.R. 1952 All. 937, the magistrate has held that as the complaint was not filed within three months, It was not maintainable. Obviously the finding is Incorrect; for it has been brought on record that the complaint was actually lodged on 21 July 1959 and there was an endorsement by the head clerk of the Magistrate's Court showing that the complaint was received on 22 July 1959 at 4-30 p.m. The contention of the learned magistrate that it did not save limitation, does not seem to be correct, for under Section 106 of the Factories Act, a complaint is to be made within three months of the date on which the commission of the offence came to the knowledge of the inspector. It does not refer to the cognizance of the case by magistrate but prescribes the filing of the complaint within three months of the date of the offence. So that if the complaint was lodged on 21 July 1959 and there was an endorsement to that effect, it could certainly save limitation. This finds corroboration by the decision of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Gopaldas Sakseria v. State 1956--I L.L.J. 11 wherein it has been laid down that

We are of opinion that what Section 106, Factories Act requires is that a complaint must be made within three months of the date on which alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of the inspector and not that the Court must take cognizance of the offence within such period and that the observation about the provisions of Section 106, Factories Act in : AIR1954All27 is not correct.

4. The same view has been taken by a Bench of the Nagpur High Court in State Government of Madhya Pradesh v. Rukhabsa Jinwarsa and Anr. A.I.R. 1953 Nag. 180. Moreover even if the complaint is not said to have been lodged on 21 July 1959, it is within the time from the date of cognizance of the complaint by the magistrate, for it is well settled that in computing the period of limitation, the date on which the offence came to the notice of the inspector, is to be excluded. It is in compliance with Section 12 of the Limitation Act which extends to special or local Acts [vide B.P. Thakur v. State--1959--II L.L.J. 34, If the date of offence, i.e., 23 April 1959 is excluded, in computing the period of limitation, the date on which the magistrate took cognizance of the offence, is certainly within the prescribed period. The finding of the magistrate, therefore, that the complaint was beyond the period of limitation is not correct.

5. Turning to the facts of the case, the additional inspector (P.W. 1) has in considerable detail set out the omission on the part of the respondent with reference to the sections and rules which have been contravened in this case. The respondent has examined a clerk of his company to show that there was sufficient compliance with the provisions of the Act; but there is absolutely no reason to discard the testimony of the additional inspector or to conclude that the additional Inspector must have made a false report against the respondent. I therefore hold the respondent guilty for contravening the provisions of Sections 61, 18 and 45 of the Factories Act punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act and sentence him to a fine of Rs. 25 under each head. Fine to be paid within one month from the date of receipt of this order in the lower Court. In case of default, the respondent will undergo three weeks' simple imprisonment.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //