The court held that the non-furnishing of a list of witnesses along with the complaint was a violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 204(2) of the CrPC and sent the case back to the trial court for consideration and decision on whether a case punishable under Section 406 IPC was made out against the accused persons based solely on the statement of the complainant.

( 1 ) DAUGHTER-IN-LAW Smt. Laxmi Bai, hereinafter called the non-applicant, has filed a complaint against her father-in-law and mother-in-law, who are the applicants No. 1 Bairo Prasad and No. 2 Smt. Prabha Devi respectively in this revision petition, for taking suitable action against them u/s. 406 of the I. P. C. The said complaint was registered and process u/s. 204 of the Criminal P. C. was issued against the applicants.

( 2 ) THIS revision is filed by the in-laws of the daughter-in-law, non-applicant, on the grounds inter alia : (I) that the complaint u/s. 200, Cr. P. C. as framed and filed, is barred by limitation under the provisions of S. 468, Cr. P. C. (II) that the case is of civil nature; and as such, no cognizance is required by the criminal Court. A third point was also raised though not taken in the memo of revision that a list of witnesses was not furnished along with the copy of the complaint and therefore, the proceedings are vitiated. On these grounds, it is prayed by the applicants that the proceedings of the criminal case No. 344 of 198x pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khurai are liable to be quashed.

( 3 ) THESE facts are not disputed that the marriage of non-applicant Smt. Laxmibai Pateria was solemnised with Bhagwat Prasad Pateria son of the applicants herein on 22-2-1972 and in the marriage, presents were given to the married couple which are construed by the daughter-in-law as her Stridhan. According to the daughter-in-law, the non-applicant, she was turned out from the marital home in the year 1973 by her in-laws and thereafter, she made repeated demands for return of Stridhan but the same were refused by the applicants. On 15-12-1975, a report was also lodged to this effect but of no avail; and lastly on 2-11-1987, a registered notice was also sent to the applicants. On these facts, a complaint for the offence punishable u/s. 406, IPC was filed.

( 4 ) SO far as the ground relating to limitation is concerned, it is contended that u/s. 406, IPC punishment provided is three years' R. I. and fine; and therefore, cl. (c) of sub-sec. (2) of S. 468, Cr. P. C. is attracted which envisages that after a lapse of period of limitation, there is a bar to take cognizance. In this context, it is argued that it was in the year 1973 according to the averments of the complainant, non-applicant, she was turned out from the marital home and her Stridhan was not given to her. Therefore, the period of limitation for purposes of S. 468, Cr. P. C. is to be computed from 1973 and the complainant having not filed the complaint within a period of three years from 1973, it is barred by limitation.

( 5 ) NO doubt, non-applicant daughter-in-law was turned out from the marital home in 1973 and accordingly, a report was lodged on 5-12-1973 and also on 17-12-1973 and demands after demands were also made for return of Stridhan but no heed was paid and ultimately on 2-11-1987, a registered notice with acknowledgement was also sent. Therefore, when the demand is made and the notice is served, from that date a fresh period of limitation shall begin to run and this will be a continuing offence and the provisions of S. 472, Cr. P. C. would be attracted which read as under :"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. "in Bhagirath Kanoriya v. State of M. P. , AIR 1984 SC 1688, where the accused persons were charge-sheeted for non-payment of employer's contribution towards provident fund before the due date, it has been held that the offence being a continuing offence, the period of limitation prescribed by S. 468, Cr. P. C. cannot have any application and under the circumstances, provisions of S. 472, Cr. P. C. will be attracted giving fresh period of limitation to run at every moment of the time during which the offence continues. In the instant case, whenever the demand is made, the period of limitati