Appeal No903 of 1978
From the Judgment and Order dated 56 12 1977 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No1937 of 1971
VC Mahajan BK Prasad Smt
Sangeeta Aggarwal and CV Subba Rao NP for the Appellant
KR Chowdhary for the Respondent
The following Order of the Court was delivered This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the Bombay High Court passed in Spe cial Civil Application No 1937 of 1971 decided on December 5 1977
The Union of India the appellant herein approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging notices of demand issued by the Municipal Council Purna respondent No 1 herein claiming tax to the tune of Rs 28400 by way of Service charges due for the period 1954 to 1960
The claim of the Union of India primarily was based under Article 285 of the Constitution read with Sec tion 135 of the Indian Railways Act 1890
The High Court interplaying the two provisions negatived the claim of the appellant by holding as follows In terms of Article 2852 these properties will continue to be liable to such taxes until Parliament by law otherwise provides
Mr Govilkar has not drawn our attention to any specific law made by the Parliament pro viding otherwise
He however relied on section 135 of the Indian Railways Act but as indicated earlier provisions of section 135 cannot have any overriding  effect against the continuance of such laws when authorised by Article 285 2 of the Constitution
It is not possible for us to hold that Railways Act is an Act made by the Parliament as contem plated under sub Article 2 of Article 285 of the Constitution The High Court further observed that As Section 135 of the Railways Act is now substituted by the corresponding provi sions of the above enactment it is unneces sary to consider the contention of Mr Govil kar as to effect of the absence of any Notifi cation
We have already indicated how section 135 or the corresponding section of the new enactment can have no overriding effect as against the saving of laws contemplated under Article 285 2 of the Constitution
 185 The view expressed by the High Court is obviously erro neous
Section 135 of the Indian Railways Act 1890 gets saved under Article 2851 of the Constitution itself
The said Article provides that property of the Union shall save in so far as Parliament may by law otherwise provide be exempt from all taxes imposed by the State or by any author ity within a State
Section 135 of the Railways Act provides as under Taxation of railways by local authorities Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any enactment or in any agreement or award based on any enactment the following rules shall regulate the levy of taxes in respect of railways from railways administrations in aid of the funds of local authorities namely 1 A railway administration shall not be liable to pay any tax in aid of the funds of any local authority unless the Central Gov ernment has by notification in the official gazette declared the railway administration to be liable to pay the tax
2 While a notification of the Central Government under clause 1 of this Section is in force the railway administration shall be liable to pay to the local authority either the tax mentioned in the notification or in lieu thereof such sum if any as an officer appointed in this behalf by the Central Government  may having regard to all the circumstances of the case from time to time determine to be fair and reasonable
3 The Central Government  may at any time revoke or vary a notification under clause 1 of this Section 4 Nothing in this Section is to be construed as debarring any railway administration from entering into contract with any local authori ty for the supply of water or light or for the scavenging of railway premises or for any other service which the local authority may be rendering or be prepared to render within any part of the local area under its control
5 Local Authority  in this section means a local authority as defined in the General Clauses Act 1887 and includes any authority legally entitled to or entrusted with the control or management of any fund for the maintenance of watchmen or for conservancy of a river
186 The aforesaid provision existing as it is in terms permits taxation of Railways by the local authority in the manner given therein the Central Government being the controlling and the regulating authority permitting liabili ty at a given point of time its extent and manner
The Indian Railways Act being a central enactment has no role to play in sub Article 2 of Article 285 for that is a sphere in which the State legislation operates
The reasoning of the High Court to oust the applicability of Section 135 of the Indian Railways Act on the test of sub Article 2 of Article 285 was totally misplaced as also in not venturing to create room for it in sub Article 1 of Article 285
The interplay of the constitutional and legal provisions being well cut and well defined requires no marked elaboration to stress the point
Accordingly we allow this appeal set aside the judgment and order of the High Court and issue the writ direction asked for in favour of the Union of India restraining the respondent council from raising demands on the railway in regard to service charges
We make it clear that the rights of the local authority as flowing under Section 135 of the Indian Railways Act 1890 stand preserved in the event of the Central Government moving into the matter if not already moved
In the circumstances of the case however there will be no order as to costs
VPR Appeal allowed


Summary:
Appellant Company filed criminal complaints under Section 630lb Companies Act and Section 406 IPC against its employees the first respondent of each appeal as they did not vacate the company quarters after about six months even after retirement
The Judicial Magistrate First Class dismissed the complaints as the same were not filed within the period of limitation of six months from the date of retirement of the Respondents employees
The High Courtholding that the offence under Section 6301 was not a continuing offence dismissed the Company s revision petitions
In the appeal to this Court on the question whether the offence under Section 630lb of the Companies Act is a continuing offence for the purpose of limitation allowing the Appeals of the Appellant Company this Court HELD 1
The beneficent provision contained in section 630 no doubt penal has been purposely enacted by the legislature with the object of providing a summary procedure for retrieving the property of the company a where an officer or employee of a company wrongfully obtains 397 possession of property of the company or b where having been placed in possession of any such property during the course of his employment wrongfully withholds possession of it after the termination of his employment
It is the duty of the court to place a broad and liberal construction on the provision in furtherence of the object and purpose of the legislation which would suppress the mischief and advance the remedy
406B E 2Officer or employee in s630 of the Companies Act includes both present and past officers and employees405B C 3
The concept of continuing offence does not wipe out the original guilt but it keeps the contravention alive day by day
The courts when confronted with provisions which lay down a rule of limitation governing prosecutions should give due weight and consideration to the provisions of s473 of the Code which is in the nature of an overriding provision and according to which notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure any court may take cognizance of an offence after the expiration of a period of limitation if inter alia it is satisfied that it is necessary to do so in the interest of justice
409D G 4
The expression continuing offence  has not been defined in the Code
The question whether a particular offence is a continuing offence  or not mustthereforenecessarily depend upon the language of the statute which creates that offence the nature of the offence and the purpose intended to be achieved by constituting the particular act as an offence
409F H 5The offence under section 630 is not such as can be said to have consummated once for all
Wrongful withholding or wrongfully obtaining possession and wrongful application of the company s property that is for purposes other than those expressed or directed in the articles of the company and authorised by the Companies Act can not be said to be terminated by a single act or fact but would subsist for the Period until the property in the offender s possession is delivered up or refunded
It is an offence committed over a span of time and the last act of the offence will control the commencement of the period of limitation and need be alleged
The offence consists of a course of conduct arising from a singleness of thought purpose of refusal to deliver up or refund which May be deemed a single impulse
Considered from another angle it consists of a continuous series of acts which endures after the period of consummation on refusal to deliver up or refund the property
It is 398 not an instantaneous offence and limitation begins with the cessation of the criminal act ie with the delivering up or refund of the property
It will be a recurring or continuing offence until the wrongful possession wrongful withholding or wrongful application is vacated or put an end to
The offence continues until the property wrongfully obtained or wrongfully withheld or knowingly misapplied is delivered up or refunded to the company
For failure to do so sub section 2 prescribes the punishment
409H 410E 6
The offence under section 630 of the Companies Act is not one time but a continuing offence and the period of limitation must be computed accordingly and when so done the complaints could not be said to have been barred by limitation
410D F WMI Cranes Ltd vs GG Advani  Anr 1984 1 Kar
Law Cronicle 462 overruled Bhagirath Kanoria and Ors
vs State of Madhya Pradesh with Bahadur Singh vs Provident Fund Inspector and Ors AIR 1984 SC 1688 referred Baldev Krishna Sahi vs Shipping Corporation of India Ltd and Anr 1987 4 SCC 361 Amrit Lal Chum vs Devoprasad Dutta Roy and Anr
   State of Bihar vs Deokaran Nenshi 19731 1 SCR 1004 Bhagirath Kanoria  Ors
vs State of Madhya Pradesh  Ors
  followed
Black s Law Dictionary Eighth Edition Special Deluxe Salmond and Heuston on the Law of Torts 19th Edn
Page 50 Halsbury s Laws of England
4th Edn
Vol 45 Para 1389 referred to