IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2008 / 23RD SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2360 of 2008() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31/05/2008 IN CRMP.2500/2007 IN ST.187/2005 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (E & O),ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER/ACCUSED ------------------------------------ LALITHA PHILIPOSE, W/O.LATE K.JOHN, PHILIPOSE, KAPLACKAL VARKALETHU HOUSE, KAITHAKODE P.O, AYROOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.D.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------ THE ASSISTANT RGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, KERALA BMC ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-21. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. NAZAR SRI.TOJAN J.VATHIKULAM, ADDL.CGSC THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.R.P. No. 2360 of 2008 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 14-08-2008 ORDER Petitioner who is the accused in S.T. No. 187 of 2005 on the file of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate Court (Economic Offences), Ernakulam which is a prosecution under Section 299 (1) and (2) of the Companies Act, 1956 challenges the order dated 31-5-2008 passed by the Magistrate refusing to stop the proceedings on the ground of limitation. 2. Heard both sides. 3. According to the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant there is an averment in paragraph 7 of the complaint that the offence was continued to be committed in the STate of Kerala where the registered office of the company is situated and if so there cannot be any bar of limitation for the alleged offence. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused submits that the said allegation does not have the effect of making the offence a continuing offence so as to save limitation under Sec. 468 Cr.P.C. The question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact which can decided only after the trial of the case. Hence, this revision is disposed of without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to raise the question of limitation after trial. V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) ani.