Limitation under Factories Act turns on actual Inspector knowledge, not presumed knowledge from an accident report.

Section 106 of the Factories Act fixes limitation from the date the Inspector actually acquires knowledge of the offence. An accident report describing the incident and the machinery involved did not, by itself, disclose the ingredients of an offence under Section 21(1)(iv)(c), because it did not show unsafe positioning, construction, or secure fencing of the dangerous part. Read with the Inspector's evidence, the report therefore did not establish knowledge of the offence when received. Actual knowledge, not a date when knowledge might have been obtained through earlier inquiry, was the relevant starting point. The complaint was accordingly not barred by limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint was barred by limitation under Section 106 of the Factories Act, 1948, on the footing that the Inspector acquired knowledge of the offence from the accident report, and whether the report disclosed commission of an offence under Section 21(1)(iv)(c) of the Act.

Analysis: Section 106 makes the date on which the alleged offence came to the knowledge of the Inspector the starting point for limitation. The report described the accident and the machine part involved, but it did not state that the dangerous part of the machinery was not safely positioned or constructed, nor that it was not securely fenced as required by Section 21(1)(iv)(c). The report therefore did not reveal all the ingredients of the offence. The Inspector's evidence, read with the report, supported the conclusion that he did not acquire knowledge of the offence when the report was received. The statutory period could not be shifted to the date when knowledge ought to have been acquired by an earlier inquiry, since the Act fixed actual knowledge as the relevant starting point.

Conclusion: The complaint was not barred by limitation, and the appeal failed.

---