A default for non-filing of a return under the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and Wealth Tax Act, 1951 within the time stipulated by law is a continuing offence.

A. K. Sengupta, J.: These two revisional applications are directed against the proceedings initiated, inter alia, against the petitioners under s. 220(2) read with s. 162(1) of the Companies Act, 1956. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance on the basis of the complaints filed by the Registrar of Companies.

2. Shortly stated the facts are that the balance sheets and profit and loss accounts of the Company, being the petitioner no. 1, for the years ending 31st December, 1979 and 31st December, 1980 were not prepared and accordingly were not placed at the respective Annual General meeting of the Company held in 1980 and 1981. Accordingly resolution was taken at the respective Annual General meeting for the year ending 31st December, 1979 and 31st December, 1980 that as soon as the balance sheet and profit and loss account were made ready, the same would be circulated to the members along with directors report for being placed before the members at the subsequent date to be fixed by Board for which due notice would be given to the members. Accordingly respective Annual General meeting had been adjourned to a future date.

3. The Registrar of Companies lodged two separate complaints, one on 7th January, 1983 in respect of the year ending on 31st December, 1979, and the other on 10th January, 1983 in respect of the year ending 31st December, 1980 in the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta, inter alia against the petitioners under s. 220(3) read with s. 161(1) of the Companies Act, 1956. The respective Annual General meeting of the Company for the aforesaid period should have been held on or about 30th June, 1980 and 31st June, 1981 respectively and the balance sheet and profit and loss account of the company for the year ending on 31st December, 1979 were required to be filed under s. 210(1) of the Company Act on or before 30th July, 1980 and the balance sheet and profit and loss account for the year ending 31st December, 1980 were required to be filed on or before 30th July, 1981. Until lodging of the complaints, no such balance sheet and profit and loss account had been filed with the Registrar. Thus, the Company, and its officers have allegedly contravened the provision of s. 220(1) of the said Act. It has also been alleged that such contravention is a continuing offence and accordingly the company and 'its' officers are liable for punishment under s, 220(3) read with s. 162(1) of the Companies Act, 1956. At the hearing, Mr. Dutta, learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the proceedings are barred by limitation in view of the provisions contained in s. 162 read with s. 159 of the Companies Act, 1956. He has submitted that cases out of which the present revisional applications have arisen were filed on 7th January and 10th January, 1983. The due date for filing of balance sheet and profit and loss account were on 30th July, 1960 in one case and in another case 30th July, 1981. The proceedings have been initiated two to three years after the due dates have expired. He submits that in view of the provision of s. 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of period of limitation. The limitation for an offence punishable with fine only is six months. It is, therefore, contended by Mr. Dutt that the leaned Magistrate could not have, in view of the bar of limitation taken cognizance of the offence in this case.

4. The contention of the State is that the offence being a continuing offence bar of limitation would not be attracted in this case. The question, therefore, is whether the offence in this case is a continuing offence or not. At this stage we may, however, mention that the balance sheet and profit and loss accounts of the company for the year ending 31st December, 1979 and 31st December, 1980 were filed on 27th May, 1983 and 6th April, 1984 respectively.

5. Mr. Dutta appearing for the petitioners has relied on a decision o