Dismissed

Dr Vijay Sharma v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC20 Dec 2023Cr.M.P./2571/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order taking cognizance under Section 92 of the Factories Act, arguing it was barred by limitation under Section 106. The Court held that Section 12 of the Limitation Act applies, allowing exclusion of the day the offence came to the Inspector's notice. The complaint was found within the three-month limitation period.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2571 of 2020 was dismissed.

Dr Vijay Sharma Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. M. P. No. 2571 of 2020

¶2

¶3

Dr. Vijay Sharma … …. Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Inspector of Factories, Seraikella-Kharsawan … …. Opp. Parties

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ----For the Petitioner : M/s P.A.S. Pati & Vani Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mr. P.C. Sinha, AC to GA-III

¶8

Oral Order

¶9

07 / Dated : 20.12.2023

¶10

The order taking cognizance dated 16.09.2013 under Section 92 of the Factories Act in connection with G.O. No. 180 of 2013 is under challenge in the instant criminal misc. petition mainly on the ground that it was barred by limitation in view of Section 106 of the Factories Act, 1948.

¶11

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 106 of the Factories Act provides that no Court shall take cognizance punishable under this Act unless complaint thereof is made within three months of the date on which the alleged commission of offence came to the knowledge of the Inspector. In the present case, official complaint was filed on 16.09.2013 by the Factory Inspector. As per the official complaint, the fatal accident took place on 17.06.2013. After the aforesaid accident, the complainant visited the place of occurrence on 18.06.2013 and after holding preliminary enquiry, official complaint was filed under Section 92 of the Factories Act. Reliance is placed on 2007 SCC Online Jhar 609 and 2021 SCC Online Jhar 624. By relying these authorities, it is submitted that the prosecution is not maintainable under Section 92 of the Factories Act when it has been launched after ninety days.

¶12

Learned counsel for the State defended the impugned order.

¶13

After having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the parties, it is apparent that the Factories Act is a special Act and there is no provision in the said Act to exclude the application of Section 12 of the Limitation Act. Section 12 of the Limitation Act is applicable to Factories Act by virtue of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. Under Section 106 of the Factories Act, the complaint of an offence has to be made within three months from the date on which the commission of offence came to the knowledge of the Inspector of Factories.

¶14

Therefore, by reason of Section 12(1) of the Limitation Act in computing the limitation of three months prescribed under Section 106 of the Act, the date on which the offence came to the notice of the Inspector of Factories is to be excluded. The offence came to the notice of the Inspector of Factories on 18.06.2013 when he visited the factory and the period according to the calendar of three months expired on 17.09.2013. Therefore, the complaint is held to be within limitation. In this regard, reliance is placed on 1980 All L.J. 323 (The State of UP Vs. B.R. Bhatia & Anr.).

¶15

Under the circumstance, Cr. misc. petition is dismissed.

¶16

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶17

AKT/Satayendra

¶18

Uploaded

Dr Vijay Sharma v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Vijay Sharma v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hafiz Ansari Alias Hafizuddin Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanjay Agrawal Vs State of Jharkhand

Anil Kumar Sinha Alias Anil Kumar Alias Anil Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Padam Narayan Khobare Vs the State of Jharkhand

Neha Sharad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dhiresh Ojha Alias Debu Ojha Vs the State of Jharkhand