TMI Blog1972 (8) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ake cognizance of any offence under this Act unless a complaint thereof has been made within six months from the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed or within six months from the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of the Inspector, whichever is later. The Explanation to the section provides that if the offence in question is a continuing offence, the period of limitation shall be computed with reference to every point of time during which the said offence continues. Under Regulation 3 of the India Metalliferrous Mines Regulations, 1926, an owner, agent or manager of every mine is required to forward to the District Magistrate and to the Chief Inspector annual returns in respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithin six months from the date of ,such default, in the present case January 21, 1960. The question then is whether the offence in question is covered by the substantive part of S. 79, or whether it is covered by the Explanation thereto. If the offence is of the former kind, the complaint in regard to it would be clearly time barred. It would not be so if ,the offence is of the kind, often called a continuing offence, in which event the Explanation to S. 79 would operate. A continuing offence is one which is susceptible of continuance and is distinguishable from the one which is committed once and for all. It is one of those offences which arises out of a failure to obey or comply with a rule or its requirement and which involves a penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ey v. Mark Fletcher Sons Ltd. ( [1909] 1 K.B. 444.) , the question again was whether the offence for which the information was lodged therein was a continuing offence. Sec. 10(1) of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901 inter alia provided that every flywheel directly connected with steam, water or other mechanical power must be securely fenced. Its sub-s. (2) provided that a factory in which there was contravention of the section would be deemed not to be kept in conformity with the Act. Sec. 135 provided penalty for an occupier of a factory or workshop if he, failed to keep the factory or workshop in conformity with the Act. Sec. 146 provided that information for the offence under s. 135 shall be laid within three months after the date at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ight 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 County Council v. Worley([1894] 2 QB 826)] In Emperor v. Karandas, (A.I.R. 1942 Bom. 326.) the question was as to the proper construction of S. 390, sub-s. (1) of the Bombay City Municipal Act, 1888. That subsection 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 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to submit an application for registration and grant of licence as required by s. 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 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 s. 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 co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... until the requirement of Reg. 3 is complied with. In other words, Reg. 3 does not render a continued disobedience or noncompliance 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 Regulation which renders the continued non-compliance an offence until its requirement is carried out. 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 s. 79 of the Act and not u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
