NIYAZUDDIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 limitation 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:

(3.) 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 straitjacket 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, it would not constitute a Tcontinuing offence. Normally and in the ordinary course, an offence is committed only once, bur, there may be offences which can be committed from day-today which are described as continuing offences.