Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 1954 (9) TMI HC This
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the prosecution against the respondent was barred by limitation under Section 106 of the Factories Act. 2. Whether the respondent's failure to apply for registration and obtain a license constituted a continuing offence. Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the prosecution against the respondent was barred by limitation under Section 106 of the Factories Act: The respondent was charged under Section 92 of the Factories Act for failing to submit a written notice of occupation in Form No. 3 and an application for registration and grant of a license in Form No. 2, as required under Sections 6 and 7 of the Factories Act and the Bombay Factories Rules, 1950. The Chief Presidency Magistrate acquitted the respondent, holding that the prosecution was barred by limitation under Section 106 of the Factories Act. Section 106 stipulates that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act unless the complaint is made within three months of the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of an Inspector. The key question was whether the offences were committed once or were continuing offences. 2. Whether the respondent's failure to apply for registration and obtain a license constituted a continuing offence: The court distinguished between two types of offences: - Failure to submit a written notice of occupation in Form No. 3: This offence was not considered a continuing offence. The factory was working before the commencement of the Act, and the respondent was required to submit the notice within 30 days from the date of commencement of the rules. The failure to comply with this requirement was a one-time offence, and thus, barred by limitation. - Failure to apply for registration and obtain a license in Form No. 2: This offence was considered a continuing offence. The respondent's conduct in using the premises as a factory without obtaining a license was a daily violation. Every day the premises were used without a license constituted a fresh offence. Therefore, the prosecution for this part of the charge was not barred by limitation. Conclusion: The court upheld the acquittal in Criminal Appeal No. 761 of 1954, as the charge related to the failure to submit a written notice of occupation was not a continuing offence and thus barred by limitation. However, in Criminal Appeal No. 762 of 1954, the court held that the second part of the charge related to the use of the premises without obtaining a license was a continuing offence and not barred by limitation. The case was remanded back to the Chief Presidency Magistrate for further proceedings on this charge.
|