( 1 ) THESE three criminal revision petitions are preferred by the appellant against a common order dated /-3-1992 passed by the Principal City Civil and Sessions judge, Bangalore, in Criminal Appeal Nos. 81 of 1990, 5 of 1991 and 6 of 1991. The learned Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, dismissed Cr. A. No. 6 of 1991, whereas he allowed Cr. A. Nos. 81 of 1990 and 5 of 1991 is part. Since these three criminal revision petitions are filed by the same appellant against a common order passed by the learned Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Metropolitan area, Bangalore, I have heard them together and I am passing a common order in these three appeals.

( 2 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent fully and perused the records of the case.

( 3 ) THE respondent filed complaint against the petitioner at C. C. No. 2744 of 1988 alleging that the petitioner has not filed his returns of ESI contribution in time. The respondent has also filed complaint against the petitioner at C. C. No. 1183 of 1988 alleging that the petitioner has committed the offence by not making payment of contribution towards ESI Find in time. The respondent also filed complaint in C. C. No. 1192 of 1988 against the petitioner alleging that he has violated the provisions of esi Act by not filing returns in time. The evidence was led by the respondent and after the trial the trial court convicted the petitioner for offences of not filing the return within time and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- in default to undergo si for 2 months, and Rs. 250/- as fine in default to undergo SI for 2 months for the offence punishable under Section 85 (e) of the ESI Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'act' ). The trial court also convicted the petitioner under Section 85 (a) of the Act for not making contribution towards ESI fund in time and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo SI for 3 months. In appeal after hearing both sides the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner at Cr. A. No. 6 of 1991 confirming the conviction of the petitioner for the offence under section 85 (a) of the Act mainly on the ground that it is a continuing offence. So far as conviction of the petitioner in other two cases for having not filed the return in time is concerned the criminal appeals relating to the said convictions, viz. , in Cr. A. Nos. 81 of 1990 and 5 of 1991 were allowed in part and the learned Sessions Judge though confirmed the conviction of the petitioner "he altered the sentence and reduced it to a fine of Rs. 100/- or in default to suffer SI for 10 days.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that so far as the offences alleged in C. C. No. 2744 of 1988 and C. C. No. 1192 of 1988 are concerned the court could not have taken cognizance of the said offence as the offence had become time-barred on the date of taking cognizance by the trial court. In order to assess merits of the contention advanced by both sides on this point, it is necessary to note that in C. C. No. 2744 of 1988 respondent filed complaint on 1-10-1988 alleging that offence had taken place on 30-4-1988 and trial court has taken cognizance on 31-10-1988. In c. C. No. 1192 of 1988 petitioner filed complaint on 29-4-1988 alleging that offence had place on 30-10-1987 and the trial court took cognizance of the offence on 29-5-1988. It is not disputed in this case that the offences alleged against the petitioner in these 2 cases for non-filing of return in time was punishable with imprisonment extending to six months or with fine which may exceed to Rs. 1,000 or both as per the law as it stood on the date of alleged commission of offence in 1988. An amendment has been introduced by an Act of 29 of 1989 with the effect from 20-10-1989 prescribing the punishment for such an offence with an imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with a fine which ma