Continuing offence test limits dividend-default prosecution under the Companies Act; delayed complaint held time-barred and quashed.

Section 205-A(8) of the Companies Act, 1956 was construed as creating a one-time default rather than a continuing offence. Although the provision prescribed a daily fine for non-compliance with dividend-payment requirements, that feature was treated as only a measure of penalty and not as making the offence recur each day. On that basis, the default was complete when it occurred, so a complaint filed after the limitation period was time-barred. The complaint and summoning order were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether an offence under Section 205-A(8) of the Companies Act, 1956, for failure to comply with the dividend-payment requirements was a continuing offence and whether the complaint filed beyond six months was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The liability created by Section 205-A(8) was examined against the settled distinction between an offence committed once and for all and a continuing offence. The provision prescribed a fine for every day during which the failure continued, but that feature was held to operate only as a measure of penalty and not as an indication that the offence itself recurred daily. Applying the principles governing continuing offences, the failure to comply with the statutory requirement was complete when the default occurred and did not become a fresh offence from day to day. Since the complaint was filed beyond the period of limitation and no condonation had been granted, cognizance could not validly be taken.

Conclusion: The offence was not a continuing offence and the complaint was barred by limitation. The complaint and the summoning order were quashed.

---