Page 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 2160 of 2024 along with CRLMC No. 2225 of 2024 (From the order of cognizance dated 25.10.2018, passed by the learned SDJM, Athagarh in Case No.2(c)C.C. 09/2018 and Case No.2(c)C.C. 03/2016). Rajeev Mittal (In both the CRLMCs) …. Petitioner(s) -versus- State of Odisha …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Haripad Mohanty, Adv. For Opposite Party (s) : Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-05.03.2026 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-13.03.2026 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. Since the issues raised in both the CRLMC referred to above involve common question of fact and law, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The Petitioner in both the aforesaid Criminal Misc. Cases, has approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:52:38 Signature Not Verified Page 2 Procedure, 1973 invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. The present applications have been preferred assailing the order of cognizance dated 25.10.2028 passed by the learned SDJM, Athagarh in 2(c) CC No.09 of 2018, whereby cognizance has been taken for the offence u/s 92 of the Factories Act against the present Petitioners. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) As it transpires from the case record, the prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that a complaint case was instituted by the Opp. Party No.2, namely the Assistant Director, Factories and Boilers, Cuttack Zone-II, Cuttack registered as 2(C) CC No.09 of 2018 in the Court of the learned SDJM, Athagarh. (ii) It is alleged that the complainant received information from the management of the factory on 22.07.2018 at about 5.30 P.M., which was subsequently followed by an Accident Report submitted in the prescribed Form No.18 on 23.07.2018. the report pertained to an accident that had occurred on 22.07.2018 at about 3.50 PM in Ferro Alloy plant of the said factory, which ultimately turned fatal 7.00 P.M on the same day. (iii) It is further alleged that the said factory is a registered establishment bearing Registration No. CK-647, situated At- Ghantikhala, P.O. Mahakalbasta, Khuntuni, Dist.- Cuttack. The factory is stated to have several operational units, including one Steel Melting Shop, two nos. DRI Kiln of 500 TPD capacity each, a Coal washery, Raw Materials Processing Plant (RMPP), a Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:52:38 Signature Not Verified Page 3 Power Plant, and two Ferro Alloys Plants of 16.5 MVA capacity each, all of which were in operation at the relevant time. (iv) Due to the accident, Indramani Sahoo, who was engaged as a helper in the factory, lost his life, while another worker, namely Surya Kanta Sahoo, sustained injuries. It is stated that the injured victim, Surya Kanta Sahoo, was a regular employee of the factory and had been working as a fitter-cum-operator since 05.12.2005. (v) It is further alleged that on 22.07.20218 both the aforesaid workers had reported for duty in ‘B’ Shift at about 3 PM and were engaged in work at the coal shed. While they were carrying out the loading and unloading of coal and the same was being fed into the hopper, the hopper suddenly got detached due to the failure of the structural load-bearing members. As a result thereof, Indramani Sahoo and Surya Kanta Sahoo fell down along with the hopper and sustained grevious injuries. (vi) Thereafter, both the injured persons were rescued and immediately shifted to M/s. Aswhini Hospital, Cuttack for medical treatment. However, on the same day, Indramani Sahoo scummed to injuries sustained in the accident and was declared dead at about 7:00PM. (vii) On 23.07.2018, upon receipt of the information regarding the accident, the complainant visited the spot. Subsequently, an inspection and investigation were carried out on 26.07.2018 and Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:52:38 Signature Not Verified Page 4 21.08.2018. during the course of such investigation, several lapses and violations of the Factories Act and Orissa Factories Rules were allegedly detected. (viii) Accordingly, on 25.10.2018, the complainant instituted the complainant before the Court. Upon receipt of the same, the learned SDJM, Athagarh was pleased to take cognizance of the offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act against the present Petitioners. Being aggrieved by such order, the Petitioner have been constrained to approach this Court by way of the present criminal appeal seeking appropriate relief. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner respectfully and earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) The Petitioner submits that the order of cognizance taken by the Learned SDJM, Athagarh is wholly erroneous and unsustainable, both on facts as well as in law, and therefore the same is liable to be set aside. (ii) The Petitioner further submits that on the date of occurrence there was heavy rainfall, as a result of which the coal loaded into the bucket had become unusually heavy. Owing to such excessive load, the load-bearing members of the structure were unable to withstand the pressure, leading to the detachment of the hopper along with the structure, which ultimately resulted in the unfortunate accident. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:52:38 Signature Not Verified Page 5 (iii) It is further contended by the Petitioner that there was no lapse or negligence on the part of the management in connection with the alleged incident. Consequently, the violations alleged in the complaint petition are wholly unfounded and unsustainable in eye of law. It is further submitted that both the victims were experienced workers and were well acquainted with the nature of the work assigned to them, and that adequate supervision was present at the site at the relevant time. (iv) The Petitioner contends that the accident occurred at 3.50 PM on 22.07.2018 and the first information regarding the said accident was received by the complainant on the same day at about 5.30 P.M. This was subsequently followed by the submission of the accident report in the prescribed Form No. 18 of the Factories Act, 1948. Thus, it is submitted that the complainant had knowledge of the occurrence of the accident on the very date of the incident itself. (v) The Petitioner further contends that under Section 106 of the Factories Act,1948 stipulates that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under the said Act unless complaint is made within three months from the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of an Inspector. (vi) In the instant case, it is submitted that the complainant had knowledge of the occurrence of the accident on 22.07.2018 itself. However, the prosecution report was submitted only on Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:52:38 Signature Not Verified Page 6 25.10.2018, which is beyond the prescribed period of three months. Therefore, the prosecution having been initiated after the expiry of the statutory period of limitation, the proceeding instituted against the Petitioners is barred by limitation as contemplated under Sec 106 of the Factories Act, 1948. (vii) The Petitioner further submits that the complaint is required to be filled within three months from the date on which the alleged commission of offence came to the knowledge of an Inspector. Therefore, the computation of the period of limitation of three months must necessarily commence from the date on which the Inspector acquired knowledge regarding the alleged commission of the offence. (viii) It is further contended that this legal position has already been authoritatively settled by the Supreme Court in J.J.Irani and Another v. State of Jharkhand reported in (2014) 1 5 SCC 813, wherein it has been held that the period of limitation prescribed under the relevant provision is to be reckoned from the date of acquisition of knowledge of the alleged offence by the competent authority. (ix) The Petitioner further submits that the law is well settled that where a complaint is filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation of three months as stipulated under Section 106 Factories Act 1948, the Court is precluded from taking cognizance of the offence. In such circumstances, the continuation of the criminal proceeding would be contrary to Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:52:38 Signature Not Verified Page 7 the statutory mandate, and therefore the same is liable to be quashed in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. (x) The Petitioner further submits that a bare perusal of the entire prosecution materials reveal that no prima facie case is made out against the Petitioner and another for the alleged offence. It is contended that the learned Court below has taken cognizance without proper application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the materials placed on record. Consequently, the order of cognizance passed against the Petitioner is unsustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY: 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Opposite Party earnestly made the submission that the present CRLMC is not maintainable before this Court and deserves to be rejected in limine. (i) The Opp. Party submits that the accident occurred on 22.07.2018 and telephonic information was received on the same day at about 5.30 P.M., followed by submission of Accident Report in Form No.18 on 23.07.2018. After due investigation, the Accident Investigation Report was submitted to the Director of Factories and Boilers, Odisha vide Memo No. 2066 dated 11.10.2018, and the Prosecution Report was thereafter filed before the learned Court after completion of statutory procedures. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:52:38 Signature Not Verified Page 8 (ii) The Respondent further submits that on 25.10.2018, the learned SDJM, Athagarh took cognizance of offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, against the accused persons. (iii) The Respondent contends that the cognizance order was passed on 25.10.2018 by the learned SDJM, Athagarh after perusing the case records and after submission of all the documents by the Complainant-cum-Investigating Officer upon completion of the investigation. (iv) the Respondents further contends that, since a prima facie case was made out against the accused persons for violation of Rule 62-C and Rule 62-D of the Orissa Factories Rules, 1950 framed under Section 41 and Section 7A(2)(C) of the Factories Act, 1948, the learned SDJM rightly took cognizance of the offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948. Hence, there was no deliberate or inordinate delay on the part of the Complainant while submitting the Prosecution Report. IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 6. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed before this Court. 7. Perusal of the records it is found that on 25.08.2018 before the learned S.D.J.M., Athgarh on 25.08.2018, which was registered as 2(c) CC. No.08 of 2018. Accordingly, the learned Court below has taken cognizance of the offence on the same day i.e on 25.08.2018 under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948. Subsequently, summonses have been issued to the accused persons. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:52:38 Signature Not Verified Page 9 8. The Factories Act being a special act/enactment inter alia provides inter alia provides for punishment and certain requirements necessary for the implementation of the Act. And Section 92 of the Factories Act prescribes penalty for imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with a fine which may extend to Rs.1 lakh or both. 9. Relying upon Form-18 and the complaint filed by the Assistant Director of Factories and Boilers, Cuttack Zone-II, Cuttack, has submitted that the occurrence took place on 04.05.2018 and was telephonically informed to the authorities under the Factories Act on the same day. 10. Subsequently, Form No.18, as prescribed under the Rules, was submitted on 22.07.2018. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the complaint is time barred as the complaint has been filed beyond the statutory limitation period on 25.08.2018 with a delay. 11. Therefore, under the statutory prescribed limitation in the Factories Act, the learned trial Court was incapacitated to take the cognizance of the offence beyond three months. He further submitted that, if the limitation is reckoned. 12. Section 106 of the Factories Act, clearly prohibits the trial Court to take cognizance of the offence under the Factories Act unless the complaint is made within three months of the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of the Inspector. 13. The prime consideration to evaluate limitation is the date of 'knowledge' acquired by the Inspector. The expression employed in Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:52:38 Signature Not Verified Page 10 the provision makes it abundantly clear that, once any of the Inspectors working under the jurisdiction acquires the knowledge of the incident the limitation reckons from that day and the complaint must be filed within three months. It is not required under the said provision that the knowledge of the cause required to be known to the Officer in the higher echelons. V. CONCLUSION: 14. In view of the foregoing analysis and upon an anxious and careful consideration of the material facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order of conviction passed by the learned SDJM, Athargarh, in 2(c) CC No. 09/2018, at present pending in the Court of learned JMFC, Athagarh is set aside. Consequently, this Court is inclined to accede to the relief prayed for. 15. Accordingly, the CRLMCs stand allowed. 16. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated 13th March, 2026/