The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of whether an offence is a continuing offence or complete on a specific date, impacting the applicability of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

( 1 ) THIS petition has come up for hearing before this Bench on a reference being made by Shri K. Bhimiah. J. It is directed against the order dated 16-3-1977 passed by the Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Coorg at mercara, in C. C. No. 541 of 1976, upholding the contention raised on behalf of the respondent under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

( 2 ) BY a complaint filed on 15-9-1975, the petitioner prosecuted the respondent for having committed offences punishable in view of the provisions in paragraphs 30 (1) and 38 (1) A of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'scheme') read with sections 6 and 14 (1) of the employee' Provident Funds and Miscellaneovs Provisions Act. 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' ). The complainant alleged that the respondent was an employer within the meaning of the Act and that he had failed to submit return and pay share of the contribution due from the employees for the periods relating to December, 1969, January, 1970 and February, 1970 within the time prescribed by law, namely, 15-1-1970, 15-2-1970 and 15-3-1970 and as such, had com. mitted breach of the aforementioned provisions and, therefore, was guilty of the alleged offences.

( 3 ) THE complaint was filed in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, mercara and it was registared as C. C. No. 1261 of 1975. The Chief Judicial magistrate issued process on 17-9-75 and on the respondent appearing before him recorded his plea on 24-11-75. The case remained on the file of the Chief judicial magistrate till 22-9-1976 and thereafter it came to be transferred, evidently under the provisions of section 192 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to the Court of the Additional Munsiffand Judicial Magistrate First Class, Coorg at Mercara by 19-11-1976. When it was received on the file of the Additional Munsiffand J. M. F. C. , it was re-registered as C. C. No. 541 of 1976.

( 4 ) A preliminary objection was raised on behalf or the respondent that the chief Judicial Magistrate had no power to take cognizance of the offences in view of section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and as such, the prosecution was incompetent.

( 5 ) IT was argued on behalf of the prosecution that the offences involved were continuing offences and as such the provisions of section 468 of the Code of criminal Procedure were not applicable and, therefore, the preliminary objection raised by the respondent was not sound in law, The learned Additional Munsiff and J. M. F. C. sustained the objection rejecting the contention on behalf of the prosecution.

( 6 ) SRI S. A. Hakeem, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the Central government, argued that the offences complained of are continuing offences and therefore, Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has no application. He relied on the decision in Akharbhai Nazarali v. Md. Hussain Bhai AIR 1961 M. P. 37. Sri S. G. Bhagwan, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent, argued that the offences complained of are not continuing offences. He placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Deokaran Nenshi AIR 1973 SC 908, on the decision of Calcutta High Courtjn M/s. Wire Machinery Manufacturing Corpo. ration Ltd. v. The State 1978 Crl LJ 839, and on the decision of this Court in Channabasappa v. State (1979) 1 Kar. L. J. 120 (Cr. R. P. 243y78) and in state of Karnataka by R. T. O. Gulbarga vs. Sheik Moulan Cr. A. 139/78 etc.

( 7 ) IT is undisputed that the respondent is an employer within the meaning of the Act and he was liable to pay contribution as provided by the Scheme. Paragraph 30 (1) of the Scheme mandatorily prescribes that the employer shall, in the first instance, pay both the contribution payable by himself and also, on behalf of the members employed by him, directly or by or through a contractor. Paragraph 38 ( 1) of the Scheme lays down that every employer shall pay the contributi