P. D. JAMBEKAR versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [1973] 2 S.C.R. 714 · Decided: 25-10-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HANS RAJ KHANNA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

714 
P. D. JAMBEKAR 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
Octobfr 25, 1972 
[H. R. KHANNA AND K. K. MATHEW, JJ.) 
Factories Act, 1948, s. 106-Know/edge of accident wit/zout ingrtdienls 
of offence-If 'Knowledge of commission of offence'. 
A 
H 
On February 27, 1968, a worker in the appellant's factory sustained 
an injury and a report of the accident was sent to the Inspector of Pac· 
tories on February 28. The report indicated that the accident took place 
when the worker was deaning a dangerous part of machinery and tha.t, 
that part of the machinery was moved by mechanical power. 
But the 
C 
report did. not state that the dangerous parts of the machinery were not in 
such position or of such construction as to be safe to every person em· 
ployed in the factory as they would be if they were securely fenced, nor 
was it stated that dangerous parts of the machinery were not securely 
fenced by safeguards of substantial construction or that they were not 
kept in position while the parts of the machinery they were fencing, were 
in motion or in use. The Inspector enquired into the accident on July 30, 
1968 and filed a complaint for an offence under 8. 2l(iv)(c) of the Pac-
D 
tories Act, 1948. The appellant contendeC: that the prosecution was barred 
hy time under s. 106 of the Act, which provides that no Court shall 
lake cognizance of :;ny offence punishable under the Act unless the com-
plaint thereof is made within 3 months of the date on which the alleged 
cornniission of the offence came to the knoivledge of the Inspector. The 
:'vfagistrate dismissed the complaint, but the. High Court set aside the order. 
on the ground that the Inspector got knowledge of the commission of :>n 
E 
offence only on the date of the enquiry :>nd not from the report. 
Dismissing the ·appeal to this C<iurt, 
HELD : ( 1) It would be difficult for any one reading the report of 
the accident to come to the conclusion that an offence under s. 21(i)(iv)(cJ 
had been committed, as it did not reveal the necessary elements that 
constitute the offence. Knowledge of the accident is not knowledge of an 
offence, and the Inspector gained knowledge of the commission of the 
,,!fence only on July 30, 1968 when he made the enquiry. [717C-E] 
(2) In interpreting a provision in a statute prescribing a period of 
limitation for instituting a proceeding, questions of equity and hardship 
are out of place. 
As s. 106 makes the -date of knowledge of the com-
mission of the offence the starting point of the period of limitation, it is 
difficult to rea.d the section so as to make the date on which the Inspector 
would or ought to have acquired knowledge of the commission of the 
offence, had he been diligent, the starting point of limitation especially when 
the statute does not provide for an inquiry into the accident or the period 
within which the inqo;rv l1as to be made. 
/718A-B; 719-D-EJ 
Na11endra Nath v. Suresh Chandra, (1932) 60 Cal. !, 6 (PC), Magbul 
Ahmed v. Pratap Narain, (1935) 57 All. 242 (PC) and State v. Keshav-
la/, A.l.R. 1958 Bombay '.!43 referred to. 
CRIMINAL APHLLATE JURISDICTION : ~·Cr. A. No. 
91 
of 
1970. 
G 
H 
A 
ll 
c 
n 
E 
P. D. JAMBEKAR v. GUJARAT (Ma1hew, J.) 
715 
Appeal by ;pecial leave from the judgment and order dat~d 
August 25, 1969 of the Gujarat High Court at Abmcdabad m 
Cr. R. A. No. 244 of 1969. 
S. T. Desai and N. N. Keswani, for the appellant. 
S. K. Dholakia and B. D. Sharma, for the respondeut. 
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. 244 of 1969. By the judgment the 
High Court set aside the order of the Chief City Magistrate, 
Ahmedabad, dismissing the complaint 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 facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. One Chandra-
kant Jethalal was a worker· in the factory in question of which 
the appellant was the Manager. On February 27, 1968, the work· 
er 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 tae stentering machine. The bevel gears were at a height 
of three feet from the ground floor and are dangerous parts of the 
stentering machine and were not safe by position
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.