STATE OF M P Vs. LALIT SHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall govern disposal of Cr. R. Nos. 236 of 1989, 237 of 1989 and 238 of 1989 as the point involved being same and the cases having been heard simultaneously. The short question in this case is as to whether an offence under section 46 (1) (d) of the M. P. General Sales Tax Act, 1958 (for short "the Act"), is a continuing offence for the purpose of section 472. Cr. P. C. and therefore, the bar of section 468, Cr. P. C would not apply to the prosecutions launched against the non-applicant.

(2.) ON September 3, 1986, complaints were filed by a Sales Tax Officer against the non-applicant complaining of an offence under section 46 (1) (d) of the Act alleging that the non-applicant commenced the business of manufacturing and selling oil and oil cake on May 16, 1975, under the registration obtained from the Sales Tax Department. The non-applicant is said to have carried on this business between May 16, 1975 to November 3, 1975. On February 6, 1982, an order reassessing the sales tax was passed and a demand of Rs. 10,800 was raised. The assessment order and demand notice was served on the non-applicant on February 23, 1984 and he was expected to deposit the amount of Rs. 10,800 within 30 days. The offence is said to have been committed because the amount so assessed was not deposited by the non-applicant. These are the facts involved in Cr. R. No. 235 of 1989. In Cr. R. No. 236 of 1989, the tax due is for the period November 4, 1975 to October 23, 1976 and the tax assessed and demanded is Rs. 91,901 by order dated December 26, 1980, out of which only Rs. 1,000 was deposited. In Cr. R. No. 237 of 1989 the amount of Rs. 4,016 is due towards sales tax and the assessment order is dated December 26, 1980. The demand notice was served on the non-applicant on February 19, 1981. In Cr. R. No. 238 of 1989 the amount of tax due is Rs. 17,155 due for the period between October 24, 1976 to December 11, 1977. The demand notice was served on November 20, 1981. All these complaints were filed in the court of C. J. M. , Ratlam, on September 3, 1986. An objection as to limitation was raised on the ground that for an offence under section 46 (1) (d) of the Act maximum sentence of six months only can be imposed with Rs. 1,000 as fine. Therefore, complaints had to be filed within one year of the commission of the offence. The C. J. M. upheld the objection and dismissed the complaint as it was beyond limitation. The State has now come up in these revision applications contending that an offence under section 46 (1) (d) of the Act was a continuing offence and, therefore, the complaint could not have been held to be barred by limitation.

(3.) A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Wire Machinery Manufacturing Corporation v. State [1979] 54 FJR 244 (Cal); 1978 Cr LJ 839 was faced with the question as to whether offence under section 14 (1a), (2), 14 (A) (1) and section 14-AA of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme read with para 76 (b) of the Scheme framed under that Act were continuing offences. Relying on State of Bihar v. Deokaran Nenshi case AIR 1973 SC 908 the court held the offence not to be a continuing offence and held the complaints to be time-barred.