Honble TIBREWAL, J.–All the petitions raise a common question of law of general importance as such they are disposed of jointly. The question that falls for consideration is : Whether offences punishable under Sections 31, 32, 33 and 72 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act (hereinafter to be referred to as `the Act) are continuing offences? In case, the question is answered in affirmative the bar of limi- tation for initiation of criminal proceedings shall not apply, otherwise a complaint would be required to be filed within the prescribed period of limitation.

(2). The above question assumes importance because of the provisions contained in Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code) under the head ``limitation for taking cognizance of certain offences. Sections 468, 472 and 473 are relevant for our purpose and they are as follows :

``Sec. 468: Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation–(1) Except as otherwise provided else where in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in Sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation.

(2) The period of limitation shall be (a) six months, if any offence is punishable with fine only; (b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year; (c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.

(3) For the purpose of this section, the period of limitation, in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable the more severe punishment or, as the case may be the most severe punishment.

Sec. 472. Continuing offence–In the case of a continuing offence, a fresh period of limitation shall begin to run at every moment of the time during which the offence continues.

Sec. 473. Extension of portion of limitation in certain cases–Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this chapter any Court may take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation, if it is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary so to do in the interest of justice.

(3). A perusal of the above Sections makes it clear that Section 468 creates a bar for taking cognizance of the offences of the category specified in sub-section (2) after expiry of prescribed period of limitation. The bar of limitation contained in Section 468, however, is not applicable in the case of a continuing offence as a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment of the time during which the offence continues. Then, Section 473 empowers the Court to take cognizance of an offence even after expiry of the period of limitation if it is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary to do so in the interest of justice. The provisions of limitation have been incorporated with a view to prevent filing cases after a long time, as a result of which material evidence may disappear and also to prevent abuse of the process of the Court by filing vexatious and belated prosecution. But, continuing offences have been kept out-side the purview of limitation having regard to their gravity and other relevant factors.

(4). The expression `continuing offence is not defined in the Code and by its very nature it is difficult to put the concept of continuing offence in a strait-joket or cast-iron formula. However, the test for deciding the question as to whether an offence is a continuing offence or not, the Judicial Courts by and large have accepted and recognized that if the act of infringement constituting an offence continues from day to day, then, a fresh offence is committed by the accused on every day so long as the act continues. On the other hand, if the act is concluded once for all,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document