Case: State Of Bihar Vs. Deokaran Nenshi

the distance from the front of the building on the opposite side of the street without the consent of the London County Council and imposed penalties for offences against the Act and a further penalty for every day during which such offence should continue after notice from the County Council. The Court construed Section 85 to have laid down two offences : (1) building to a prohibited height, and (2) continuing such a structure already built after receiving a notice from the County Council. The latter offence was a continuing offence applying to any one who was guilty of continuing the building at the prohibited height after notice from the County Council. (The London Country Council, v. Worley, 1894 (2) Q. B. 826)8. In Emperor v. Karsandas, AIR 1942 Bom 326 the question was as to the proper construction of Section 390 Sub-s. (1) of the Bombay City Municipal Act, 1888. The sub-sec. provided that no person shall newly establish in any premises any factory in which it was intended that steam, water or other mechanical power should be employed, without the previous permission of the Commissioner, nor shall any person work or allow to be worked any such factory without such permission. The sub-section thus laid down two distinct offences : (1) establishing a new factory in which mechanical power was intended to be used without the permission, and (2) working such a factory in which mechanical power was intended to be used without permission.The High Court held that the first offence would be completed when a new factory was established without permission, an offence completed once and for all, while the other offence would be committed whenever such a factory without the permission was worked, that is, on every day that it was worked without the permission. The High Court observed that though the expression continuing offence was not a very happy expression, it was very often used. A person may not continuously work such a factory. He might work it one day and not work it the next day, and then resume its working once again. Therefore, the proper meaning to be attached to such an offence was that whenever he worked such a factory he committed an offence. The distinction between the two kinds of offences lay between an act which constituted an offence once and for all and an act which continued, and therefore, constituted a fresh offence every time on which it continued. Similarly, in State v. Bhiwandiwala, ILR (1955) Bom. 192 = (AIR 1955 Bom. 161 ) three offences were charged against the respondent : (1) failure to submit a written notice of occupation of his factory as required by Section 7 (1) of the Factories Act, 1948, (2) failure to submit an application for registration and grant of licence as required by Section 6 of the Act read with rule 4 of the Bombay Factories Rules, 1950, and (3) for using the premises as a factory without a licence. The High Court held that the first two offences were offences completed on failure to submit the notice and the application for registration and licence, and a complaint in respect of them would be barred if it was lodged beyond the period of three months from the date of the offence under Section 106 of the Act. But a prosecution in respect of the third offence would not be so barred as that offence was a continuing offence in the sense that using the premises as a factory without registration and licence was an offence committed every time that the premises were used as a factory. Likewise, in State of Bihar v. J. P. Singh, 1963 BLJR 782 the High Court of Patna held that conducting a restaurant without having it registered and without maintaining registers required by the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, VIII of 1954 and the Rules framed thereunder were continuing offences as every time a restaurant was run without its being registered and without maintaining the requisite registers was an offence, and therefore, the period of limitation under Section 36 of the Act would begin to run from the date of the occurrence of each of the defaults. (see also State v. Laxmi Narain, AIR 1957 All 343 (2).)9. Reg. 3 read with Section 66 of the Mines Act makes failure to furnish annual returns for the preceding year by the 21st of January of the succeeding year an offence. The language of Reg. 3 clearly indicates that an owner, manager etc. of a mine would be liable to the penalty if he were to commit an infringement of the Regulation and that infringement consists in the failure to furnish returns on or before January 21 of the succeeding year. The infringement, therefore, occurs on January 21 of the relevant years and is complete on the owner failing to furnish the annual returns by that day. The Regulation does not lay down that the owner, manager etc. of the mine concerned would be guilty of an offence if he continues to carry on the mine without furnishing the returns or that the offence continues until the requirement of Reg. 3 is complied with. In other words Reg. 3 does not render a continued disobedience or non-compliance of it an offence. As in the case of a construction of a wall in violation of a rule or a bye-law of a local body, the offence would be complete once and for all as soon as such construction is made a default occurs in furnishing the returns by the prescribed date. There is nothing in Reg. 3 or in any other provision in the Act or the Regulations which renders the continued non-compliance an offence until its requirement is carried out.10. The High Court, in our view was right in holding that the complaint was time-barred as the offence in question fell within the substantive part of Section 79 of the Act and not under the Explanation attached to it. Th

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]9. Reg. 3 read with Section 66 of the Mines Act makes failure to furnish annual returns for the preceding year by the 21st of January of the succeeding year an offence. The language of Reg. 3 clearly indicates that an owner, manager etc. of a mine would be liable to the penalty if he were to commit an infringement of the Regulation and that infringement consists in the failure to furnish returns on or before January 21 of the succeeding year. The infringement, therefore, occurs on January 21 of the relevant years and is complete on the owner failing to furnish the annual returns by that day. The Regulation does not lay down that the owner, manager etc. of the mine concerned would be guilty of an offence if he continues to carry on the mine without furnishing the returns or that the offence continues until the requirement of Reg. 3 is complied with. In other words Reg. 3 does not render a continued disobedience or non-compliance of it an offence. As in the case of a construction of a wall in violation of a rule or a bye-law of a local body, the offence would be complete once and for all as soon as such construction is made a default occurs in furnishing the returns by the prescribed date. There is nothing in Reg. 3 or in any other provision in the Act or the Regulations which renders the continued non-compliance an offence until its requirement is carried out.10. The High Court, in our view was right in holding that the complaint was time-barred as the offence in question fell within the substantive part of Section 79 of the Act and not under the Explanation attached to it.