Topic: section 106. Limitation of prosecutions

No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act unless complaint thereof is made within three months of the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of an Inspector :

Provided that where the offence consists of disobeying a written order made by an Inspector, complaint thereof may be made within six months of the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed.

1Explanation : For the purposes of this section,

(a) in the case of a continuing offence, the period of limitation shall be computed with reference to every point of time during which the offence continues;

(b) where for the performance of any act time is granted or extended on an application made by the occupier or manager of a factory, the period of limitation shall be computed from the date on which the time so granted or extended expired.

STATE AMENDMENT

Uttar Pradesh.—After section 106, insert the following section.—

"106A. Compounding in offences.—The Inspector may, subject to any general or special order of the State Government in this behalf, compound any offences punishable under this Act with fine only, and committed for the first time, either before or after the institution of the prosecution, on realisation of such amount of composition fee as he thinks fit not exceeding the maximum amount of fine fixed for the offence; and where the offence is so compounded,—

(i) before the institution of the prosecution, the offender shall not be liable to prosecution, for such offence and shall, if in custody, be set at liberty;

(ii) after the institution of the prosecution the composition shall amount to acquittal of the offender."

[Vide Uttar Pradesh Act, 35 of 1979, sec. 4 (w.e.f. 21-12-1979)].

comments

On visiting second time, Inspector discovered continuance of disobedience of a provision of the Factories Act, limitation for complaint can be said to start from date of later visit of Inspector; State of Mysore v. M.R. Srinivasan, 1966 (2) LLJ 274.