TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1972 (10) TMI 141
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....prosecution was barred by time. 2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. One Chandrakant Jethalal was a worker in the factory in question of which the appellant was the Manager. On February 27, 1968, the worker 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 the 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 and construction. As a result of the injury his fingers had to be amputated. In respect of this accident, the Inspector of factories received a report fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce committed if any, is one under Clause (iv)(c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act. Section 21(1)(iv)(c) reads as follows: Unless they are in such position or of such construction as to be safe to every person employed in the factory as they would be if they were securely fenced, the following, namely, (a) every part of an electric generator, a motor or rotary convertor; (b)every part of transmission machinery; and (c)every dangerous part of any other machinery, shall be securely fenced by safeguards of substantial construction which shall be kept in position while the parts of machinery they are fencing are in motion or in use: 4. A plain reading of Section 21(l)(iv)(c) would indicate that every dangerous part of any ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as moved by mechanical power at the time" the fact stated was, "mechanical" and in column 9(c) which states "state exactly what injured person was doing at the time." the answer given was, "cleaning the clip stenter machine". 6. The statements in the report only indicated that an accident has taken place to the worker who was cleaning the clip stenter machine with a rag in his right hand near the bevel gear, which is a dangerous part of machinery and the rag and the right palm slipped inside the gear and whole palm with five fingers was crushed. It also indicated that the part of the machinery was moved by mechanical power and the accident took place when the worker was cleaning the clip stentering machin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spector should have enquired into it with reasonable promptness and as Section 106 prescribes a period of only three months, from the date of the knowledge of the commission of the offence for filing a complaint, the Inspector ought not have waited for a period of 6 months for making the inquiry. It was argued that if an Inspector were to come to know of an accident, he cannot wait till such time as he choose to make the inquiry and then say that he came to know of the commission of an offence under the Act as a result of the inquiry and thus postpone at his whim the starting point of limitation. There can be no doubt that if the Inspector had conducted the inquiry earlier, he would have come to know of the commission of the offence earlier....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fence came to the knowledge of the Inspector only after the completion of the inquiry and that the complaint having been made within six months of the completion of the inquiry, was within time. On the other hand, it was contended for the accused that where the knowledge of the commission of an offence was dependent upon the result of an inquiry, such inquiry must necessarily be commenced within two months of the date of intimation of the accident and that the period of two months cannot be extended by delaying the inquiry. Dealing with the question, the learned Judge said : It was then said that had an inquiry been instituted earlier, the Inspector would have come to know of the breach in question earlier and so limitation must be deemed ....