TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether failure to apply for registration of the factory and to give the prescribed notice of occupation under the Factories Act was a continuing offence so as to avoid the bar of limitation under Section 106; (ii) Whether using the premises as a factory without obtaining a licence was a continuing offence and therefore not barred by limitation.
Issue (i): Whether failure to apply for registration of the factory and to give the prescribed notice of occupation under the Factories Act was a continuing offence so as to avoid the bar of limitation under Section 106.
Analysis: The statutory scheme required an occupier of an existing factory to apply for registration and submit the prescribed notice within the time fixed by the rules. The omission to do these acts was complete when the period expired. The default related to the initial establishment and occupation of the factory without compliance, and did not continue from day to day.
Conclusion: The omission to apply for registration and to give the prescribed notice was not a continuing offence and the prosecution on that charge was barred by limitation.
Issue (ii): Whether using the premises as a factory without obtaining a licence was a continuing offence and therefore not barred by limitation.
Analysis: The licensing requirement was central to the statutory control of factories and authorised only lawful day-to-day use of the premises as a factory. Each day's use without a licence constituted a fresh breach of the statutory obligation. The offence therefore recurred so long as the premises continued to be used without the licence.
Conclusion: Using the premises as a factory without obtaining a licence was a continuing offence and was not barred by limitation.
Final Conclusion: One appeal failed because the charge of non-registration and non-notice was time-barred, while the other succeeded to the extent that the licensing charge survived and had to be dealt with according to law.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory default is complete upon expiry of the prescribed time it is not a continuing offence, but where unlawful use of premises persists from day to day in breach of a licensing requirement, each day's use constitutes a fresh offence for limitation purposes.
TaxTMI 
