1. ORDER of REFERENE he facts of this case are as follows :- S. Barkat Hayat Khan, Managing Director of the Rawal--pindi Electrict Power Company Ltd., Rawalpindi, has been prosecuted under section 60 (a) (iv) of the Factories Act read with rule 87 of the Factory Rules, 1962, on account of his alleged failure to submit the Certificate of Stability to the Chief Inspector of Factories. Complaint P. B. Was accordingly drawn up by the Chief Inspector and forwarded to the A. v. M., R'Pindi, for disposal in accordance with law. The petitioner pleaded not guilty. The Divisional Labour Officer appeared as the principal P. W. He testified to petitioner's failure to submit the requisite certificate of stability. The petitioner examined Abdul Ghafur Khan Senior Clerk of the Office of the Chief Inspector of Facto--ries, in defence. The latter stated inter a lia that the plan of the Factory in dispute was received by the Authorities concerned as far back as the year 1946. It was on 11.2-46 to be more precise And that no defect was noticed in the plan submitted by the Company. This Factory, it further appears, has been inspected by the Inspector of Factories from time to time since 10-10-1950. In reply to the Court question whether the Inspector of Factories ever issued a notice or warning to the accused Company requiring them to produce a Stability Certificate the D. W. Stated that there was no warning or letter on the record to this effect.
2. The proceedings are forwarded for revision on the following grounds: -- The record is silent as to the date when the offence is alleged to have been committed. Q .
3. Muhammad Amin, Division Labour Officer (P. W. 1) does not refer even obliquely to the date. He was not in a position to state whether the accused-Company sent the required documents by now or not. On the contrary, accord--ing to the defence produced by the petitioner, the plan of the installation was received by the Authorities as early as 11-2-46 and no defect was noticed in the plan submitted by the Company. The factory has been inspected by the Inspector of Factories many a time. For the first time it was inspected on 10-10-50. The plan received by the Authorities on 11-2-46, according to Abdul Ghafur, Khan D. W. Is not on record. It is also in evidence that the Inspector of Factories never issued a notice or a warning to the Factory was admittedly received by the authorities andin as much as it has not been produced by them, the presumption is that if produced, it would have gone against the party not producing it. The disclosure made by the D. W.
4. That no defect was noticed in the plan submitted by the Company, furnishes a pointer. It is proof presumptive of the fact that the Authorities were satisfied that the building of the Factory, was stable from top to bottom. However be that as it may section 75 of the Factories Act operates as a bar to petitioner's prosecution. According to this section, no Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act or any rule or order thereunder other than an offence under section 62 or section 64 unless complaint thereof is made within six months of the date ' on which the offence is alleged to have been committed. The offence laid to the petitioner's charge does not fall within the ambit of sections 62 and 64 in the absence of anything to show that the alleged offence was committed within A six months of the date, the present complaint against the petitioner was instituted, his prosecution offends against the provisions of section 75 of the Act. The lower Court has observed that the offence committed by the petitioner was of a recurring nature, but it has cited no authority to warrant any such supposition. The Court below accordingly erred in coining an interpretation of which section 75 seems least susceptible. It is, therefore, recom--mended that the order of the lower Court be quashed, and the fine, if paid remitted to the petitioner.
5. ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT For the reasons mentioned in the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, this reference is accepted and the conviction and sentence of the petitioner is set aside. The fine, if already paid be refunded to him.