R. Srinivasan vs The Inspector Of Factories And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 10153 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

    THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                    Crl.MC.No.3648 OF 2017(E)

 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 926/2016 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
                    OF FIRST CLASS -I,PALAKKAD


PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2:

      1      R. SRINIVASAN
             AGED 54 YEARS,
             S/O.RANGARAJAN,
             MANAGING DIRECTOR,
             SAINT-GOBIAN INDIA PVT LTD,
             KANJIKODE WEST,
             PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678623.

      2      V.V.VENKATESH
             AGED 52 YEARS,
             S/O.V.V.VENKATESWARAN,
             MANAGER,SAINT-GOBIAN INDIA PVT LTD,
             KANJIKODE WEST,
             PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678623.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)
             SRI.C.JAYAKIRAN

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

      1      THE INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES AND BOILERS
             GRADE-I, CIVIL SATATION,
             PALAKKAD-678001.

      2      STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
             HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
             ERNAKULAM-682031.

             BY ADV.SRI.RAMESH CHAND, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD         ON
25.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.MC.No.3648 OF 2017(E)

                                   2




                              ORDER

The cognizance taken for the offence

under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948

challenged on the ground of limitation and

sought to quash the same. The limitation

period made mentioned in the main Section 106

of the Act is only three months from the date

of knowledge of the incident. The incident

was happened on 10.07.2016. An inspection

was made on the factory on 25.07.2016 and the

complaint was lodged on 22.10.2016, within

three months from the date of inspection.

But in Annexure B show cause notice reveals

the date of notice/knowledge regarding the

alleged incident, which was happened on

10.07.2016 as 15.07.2016. Hence, the

complaint lodged on 22.10.2016 stood barred

by limitation and it will not serve any Crl.MC.No.3648 OF 2017(E)

purpose if it is proceeded further. Yet

another contention was also raised by the

prosecutor that proviso to Section 106 of the

Act would come into play as it is pertaining

to violation of orders issued. The alleged

incident happened on 10.07.2016 and it is not

at all a violation of the order, if any,

issued. Hence, there is no merit in the said

submission.

Crl.M.C. is allowed accordingly by

quashing the private complaint and the

cognizance taken thereof.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE SPV Crl.MC.No.3648 OF 2017(E)

APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.C.926/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-I, PALAKKAD.

ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 28.07.2016 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS BY THE INSPECTOR, FACTORIES & BOILERS, GRADE-I, PALAKKAD

ANNEXURE C COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS SHEET IN C.C.926/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-I, PALAKKAD.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE