The High Court came to the companyclusion that the Inspector did number get any knowledge of the companymission of an offence under the Act from the report, and as he got the knowledge of the companymission of the offence only on the date of the enquiry, the companyplaint was filed within time.
On behalf of the accused a preliminary objection was taken that the prosecution was barred by time in view of the provisions of s.106 of the Act which provides that numberCourt shall take companynizance of any offence punishable under the Act unless companyplaint thereof is made within three months of the date on which the alleged companymission of the offence came to the knowledge of an Inspector.
R. A. No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered MATHEW, J. This is an appeal by Special Leave from the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Revision Application No.
1948 hereinafter called the Act .
The Inspector visited the factory on 30 7 68 and made an enquiry into the accident.
Thereafter he filed the companyplaint on 20 9 68 for an offence punishable under s. 92 of the Factories Act.
It was against this order that the revision application was filed before the High Court.
CRIMINAI, APPELLATE JURISDICTION Cr.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated August 25, 1969 of the Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad in Cr.
The Magistrate found that the report companyveyed knowledge of the companymission of an offence and that the Inspector came to know about the companymission of the offence on the date the report was received by him and therefore the companyplaint was barred by time.
244 of 1969.
91 of 1970.
244 of 1969.
On February 27, 1968, the worker while cleaning the clip stentering machine with a rag near the delivery side slipped when the machine was in motion, and while trying to save himself, his right hand was trapped into the bevel gears of the stentering machine.
By the judgment the High Court set aside the order of the Chief City Magistrate,, Ahmedabad, dismissing the companyplaint filed by the Inspector of Factories against the Manager of Arun Mills Ltd., the appellant here, on the ground that the prosecution was barred by time.
The bevel gears were at a height of three feet from the ground floor and are dangerous parts of the stentering machine and were number safe by position and companystruction.
A. No.
T. Desai and N. N. Keswani, for the appellant.
K. Dholakia and B. D. Sharma, for the respondent.
One Chandra kant Jethalal was a worker in the factory in question of which the appellant was the Manager.
In respect of this accident, the Inspector of factories received a report from the companycerned authority on February 28, 1968.
The facts of the case lie in a narrow companypass.
As a result of the injury his fingers had to be amputated.
