Continuing breach under the Factories Act can trigger fresh limitation periods for later defaults arising from the same omission.

Non-fencing of fermentation vats under the Factories Act was treated as a continuing statutory breach because the duty to securely fence the vats persisted while the factory was worked, and each day's non-compliance constituted a fresh contravention punishable under the Act. The limitation period was held to run from the particular offence brought to the Inspector's knowledge, so Section 106 barred only contraventions outside the three-month period and did not prevent prosecution for later fresh defaults arising from continued omission. The complaint was therefore not time-barred, the acquittal on limitation was set aside, and the matter was remitted for trial.

---

---

Issues: Whether non-fencing of the fermentation vats under the Factories Act constituted a continuing offence so that a complaint filed within three months of the later contravention was within limitation under Section 106 of the Factories Act, 1948.

Analysis: Section 33 imposed a continuing statutory duty to securely fence the vats, and each day's non-compliance while the factory was being worked amounted to a fresh contravention punishable under Section 92. The limitation provision in Section 106 was held to apply to the particular offence brought to the Inspector's knowledge and to bar only contraventions outside the three-month period, not later fresh defaults arising from the continued omission. The analogy of Section 23 of the Limitation Act, 1908 was rejected because the principle of a continuing wrong merely supported the conclusion that a fresh default gives a fresh starting point for limitation. Earlier contrary authority treating a later prosecution as barred unless there had been a prior conviction was overruled.

Conclusion: The complaint was not barred by limitation and the acquittal based on time-bar was set aside; the matter was remitted for trial in accordance with law.

---