General authorisation and continuing default under RBI law sustained the complaints and avoided a limitation bar.

A general written authorisation under the Reserve Bank of India Act was sufficient to support complaints filed by an authorised officer; the notification was not limited to offences already committed or to any single offence, so the challenge for want of authorisation failed. The court also treated the default in furnishing the required return as a continuing offence because the statute imposed further daily liability for each day the failure continued, bringing the matter within the limitation rule while the default persisted. On both points, the proceedings were allowed to stand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the complaints were incompetent for want of valid authorisation under Section 58E(1) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934; (ii) Whether the alleged default under Section 58B(2) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 was a continuing offence so as to save cognizance from being barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the complaints were incompetent for want of valid authorisation under Section 58E(1) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934.

Analysis: Section 58E(1) permits the Bank to authorise an officer generally or specially in writing to make a complaint. The notification relied upon empowered officers of the relevant department, including the complainant's rank, to file complaints under Section 58B. The authorisation was not confined to offences already committed or to any particular offence, and the officer so generally authorised could decide for himself whether a complaint should be lodged.

Conclusion: The complaints were validly instituted and the challenge based on want of authorisation failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the alleged default under Section 58B(2) of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 was a continuing offence so as to save cognizance from being barred by limitation.

Analysis: Section 58B(2) not only penalises the initial failure to furnish the required return but also expressly provides further fine for every day after the first during which the default continues. That wording makes the breach susceptible of continuance and distinguishes it from an offence complete once and for all. The limitation rule in Section 472 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 therefore applies while the failure persists.

Conclusion: The offence was a continuing one and cognizance was not barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: Both grounds urged by the petitioners were rejected, and the proceedings were allowed to stand.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute authorises general written authorisation to file complaints, an officer validly so authorised may institute complaints for offences within that statutory class, and a default expressly made punishable for every day of its continuance is a continuing offence for limitation purposes.

---