Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (1.69 seconds)
Vasudeva Rao (H.) vs State Of Mysore on 7 July, 1960 cites

Public Prosecutor vs Rathnam Pillai (T.A.) on 16 September, 1957

3. The ground of limitation under Section 106 is founded on the following facts: P.W. 1; M. Chami Nair, the Chief Inspector of Factories, Bangalore, according to the evidence given by him, visited the "factory" of the petitioner on 12 March 1957, 9 December 1957 and 5 June 1958; on all those occasions he found that the petitioner was working the "factory" without a licence. But the complaint in this case was filed sometime in 1959 and that on the basis of the show-cause notice issued on 29 December 1958, which was given after an inspection by P.W. 2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the offence came to the knowledge of the Chief Inspector even as early as 12 March 1957 and the complaint not having been filed within three months from that date, the Court was precluded from taking cognizance of the offence in question. Sri K.R.D. Karanth did not press the ground of limitation with regard to the second and the third charges which relate to offences which are clearly "continuing offences." Hence we have to see whether the offence of carrying on the manufacturing process is an establishment without obtaining a licence under the "Act" and the "Rules" from the Chief Inspector of Factories Is a "continuing offence." Sri Karanth placed considerable reliance on the decision in Public Prosecutor v. T.A. Rathnam Pillai 1959--I L.L.J. 257 in support of his contention. Before we proceed to consider that decision it is necessary to acquaint ourselves with the relevant provisions of the "Act" and the "Rules." The relevant portion of Section 6 reads:
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

State vs A.H. Bhiwandiwalla on 13 September, 1954

The distinction between offences which are complete and offences which are continuing are well brought out by Gajendragadkar, J. (as he then was) in State v. A.B. Bhiwandiwala 1956--II L.L.J. 153. In that case the accused before occupying or using the premises in question as a "factory" had failed to submit to the Chief Inspector of Factories of Bombay State, a written notice in Form 3 as required under Section 7(1) of the Factories Act and rules made thereunder. He had also failed to submit to the Chief Inspector of Factories an application in Form 2 for the registration of the "factory" and grant of licence as required under Section 6 of the Factories Act read with rules of the Bombay Factories Rules, 1950. It was held that the failure to apply for the grant of a licence was a continuing offence, where as the failure to apply for registration and to give a notice of occupation was not a continuing offence. Consequently the former was not barred by Section 106 while the latter was so barred. In cases where licences are required to occupy a building, the offence Is complete once the building is occupied without a licence. But in the case of working of a "factory," It is a continuing offence. The failure of a person to obtain the necessary licence to run the "factory" meant that he committed a fresh offence on every day that he worked the " factory."
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 30 - Full Document
1