Continuing offence doctrine: failure to file company returns was complete on expiry of time, so prosecution was time-barred.

Failure to file annual returns, balance sheets and profit and loss accounts under the Companies Act was treated as a completed default on expiry of the statutory filing period, not a continuing offence. A daily measure of penalty during the period of default did not make the non-compliance revive each day or exclude limitation. On that basis, the criminal limitation period under procedural law applied, and cognisance taken after an extended delay was barred. The prosecution could not be sustained because the statutory breach was complete once and for all, even though its legal consequences continued.

---

---

Issues: Whether the alleged default in filing annual return, balance-sheet and profit and loss account under the Companies Act constituted a continuing offence so as to exclude the bar of limitation for taking cognisance.

Analysis: The complaint was founded on alleged non-compliance with the statutory requirements for filing annual return and accounts, for which the Act prescribes penalty on a daily basis during the period of default. The Court held that a daily measure of penalty does not convert a completed default into a continuing offence. Relying on the distinction between a continuing offence and a wrong complete once and for all, it held that failure to file the required returns is complete on the expiry of the statutory time for compliance and the legal effect may continue, but the offence does not revive each day. Consequently, the limitation under the criminal procedure law applied to the prosecution.

Conclusion: The offence was not a continuing offence and the cognisance taken after more than eleven years was barred by limitation; the prosecution could not be sustained.

---