Chandra Reddi, J.-This matter was placed before a Bench as it was thought that there was divergence of judicial opinion on the question whether infringement of section 92 of the Village Panchayats Act (hereinafter called the Act) is a continuing offence within the proviso to section 103 of the Act. The petitioner was charged under section 92(b)read with section 115 of the Act in that he failed to get the permission of the Village Panchayat to install 30 h.p. electric motor for running a rice and flour mill. The gravamen of the charge was that the petitioner was the owner of a rice-mill in Bhamidipativari Street, Chodavaram, called Ventateswara Rice-Mill, and he had erected another rice-mill called Varalakshmi Rice-Mill in the same compound on 22nd March, 1953, without the requisite permission from the Panchayat and thereby was guilty.

The defence was that there was only one rice-mill called Venkateswara Rice-Mill, that they had applied for permission to install another rice-mill, but that was not completed and in any event the prosecution launched beyond three months of the offence was barred under section 103 of the Act. These objections were overruled and the petitioner was convicted as charged and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100, by the Sub-Magistrate of Chodavaram which was confirmed on appeal by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Yellamanchili.

The main contention urged before us was that an offence under section 92 read with section 115 is governed by the main section 103 and does not fall under the proviso to that section. To appreciate the controversy it is convenient to refer to the terms of the relevant provisions of the Act.

“Section 92.-No person shall, without the permission of the Panchayat and except in accordance with the conditions specified in such permission-

(a) * * * * * * *

(b) install in any premises any machinery or manufacturing plant driven by any power as aforesaid, not being machinery or manufacturing plant exempted by the rules”.

The penalties for infraction of any of the requirements of the Act are provided in section 115. Section 103 fixed a period of three months for the prosecution of offences under the Act. The proviso to section 103 runs thus:

“Provided that failure to take out a license or obtain permission under this Act shall, for the purpose of this section, be deemed to be a continuing offence until the expiration of the period, if any, for which the licence or permission is required and if no period is specified, complaint may be made at any time within 12 months from the commencement of the offence”.

It is maintained for the petitioner that failure to obtain permission to install a machinery cannot be deemed to be a continuing offence for purposes of the proviso. It is argued that the proviso contemplates an offence which consists of a series of acts and can have no application to a single and solitary act like the installation of a machine. The language “licence or permission for which no period is prescribed” connotes a licence or permission for an indefinite period as contrasted with a fixed period.

In support of this submission, reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on some rulings of the Madras High Court in Muthu Balu Chetti, In re1, Muthu Balu Chettiar v. Chairman, Madura Municipality, Madura2, and Kandaswami Pillai v. Executive Officer, Panchayat Board3, and a judgment of one of us in Crl. R.C. No. 657 of 1954. None of these rulings has any relevancy to this enquiry. In Muthu Balu Chetti, In re1, the provisions of sections 249 and 250 of the District Municipalities Act which are in pari materia with sections 91 and 92 of the Village Panchayats Act fell to be considered. It was decided there that the object and scope of sections 249 and 250 of the District Municipalities Act were entirely different, the second dealing with permission to install a machinery while the former concerned a licence for running the machine and that permission to install a machinery would

Click Here to Read the rest of this document