Continuing offence test under mines law: omission to file annual returns was held to be a one-time default, not recurring.

Failure to furnish annual returns by the prescribed due date under the Mines Regulations was a one-time omission completed when the date expired. The statutory scheme did not treat the continued absence of returns as a fresh or recurring breach, because liability was not expressed to continue until compliance. The Court distinguished a continuing offence as one where non-compliance persists and a fresh offence arises each day the default continues. On that construction, the complaint was time-barred under the substantive limitation provision in the Mines Act.

---

---

Issues: Whether failure to furnish annual returns under Regulation 3 of the India Metalliferrous Mines Regulations, 1926 read with Section 66 of the Mines Act, 1952 was a continuing offence so as to attract the extended limitation under the Explanation to Section 79 of the Mines Act, 1952.

Analysis: The obligation to furnish annual returns by the prescribed date was held to be complete on the expiry of that date. The regulatory scheme did not make the continued absence of returns a fresh or recurring offence, nor did it provide that liability would continue until compliance. A continuing offence was distinguished as one where disobedience or non-compliance itself persists and a fresh offence arises every day the default continues. On the language of the Regulation, the default here was a one-time omission, complete when the returns were not furnished by the due date.

Conclusion: The offence was not a continuing offence and the complaint was barred by limitation under the substantive part of Section 79 of the Mines Act, 1952.

---