( 1 ) THIS Rule was issued at the instance of the Corporation of Calcutta against an order of the Municipal Magistrate of Calcutta acquitting the accused opposite parties of an offence under Section 488 read with Section 396 (1) (a), Calcutta Municipal Act.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY, the facts are that the opposite parties have been running a private market for which they had no license. They had applied for a license and it had been refused on 24-9-49. On 22-2-50 the present prosecution was launched. The objection taken was that in view of Section 534 (1) (a) the prosecution was barred by limitation. The reply of the Corporation was that there was continuing offences and therefore they had a fresh starting point of limitation from each such offence. It is said in Section 488 (2) that whoever after having been convicted of any offence referred to. . . . . continues to commit such offence shall be punished. . . . . " This shows that a continuing offence is after a conviction for the original offence and not before. If an offence is committed and the Corporation takes no steps it cannot come to Court for punishment for continuing offences. Therefore as in the present case ther