Continuing offence doctrine applied to criminal breach of trust, keeping the complaint within limitation and rejecting vagueness challenge.

Criminal breach of trust was treated as a continuing offence for limitation purposes because the unlawful retention of entrusted property persists until it is restored to the person entitled to it, attracting a fresh period of limitation under the Code of Criminal Procedure and preventing the bar under Section 468. The complaint was also not quashed for vagueness, as it clearly alleged entrustment of stridhan and refusal to return it despite repeated requests; the omission of some intervening persons' names did not undermine the core accusation. The petition was therefore dismissed, and the complaint was held to be within limitation and otherwise maintainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is a continuing offence so as to attract Section 472 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and avoid the bar of limitation under Section 468; (ii) whether the complaint and summoning order were liable to be quashed for vagueness of allegations.

Issue (i): whether the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is a continuing offence so as to attract Section 472 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and avoid the bar of limitation under Section 468.

Analysis: The limitation scheme in Chapter XXXVI of the Code distinguishes between offences committed once and for all and continuing offences. A continuing offence is one that persists so long as the unlawful state continues and gives rise to a fresh period of limitation at every moment of continuance. On principle, the Court treated criminal breach of trust as involving a continuing element because the property continues to remain misappropriated or unlawfully retained until restored to the person entitled to it. The extended meaning of stolen property under Section 410 of the Indian Penal Code was also relied upon as supporting the continuing character of the offence. The contrary single-judge views were not treated as binding, and the reference was answered by adopting the continuing-offence construction.

Conclusion: The offence under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code was held to be a continuing offence, and limitation did not bar the complaint on the facts considered.

Issue (ii): whether the complaint and summoning order were liable to be quashed for vagueness of allegations.

Analysis: The complaint specifically alleged entrustment of stridhan and refusal to return it despite repeated requests. The absence of the names of certain respectable persons said to have intervened did not render the complaint vague, since the material accusation was otherwise clearly set out. The Court found no basis to interfere on this ground.

Conclusion: The challenge based on vagueness of allegations failed.

Final Conclusion: The complaint was held to be within limitation and otherwise not liable to be quashed, so the petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where criminal breach of trust continues so long as the entrustment is not undone and the property is not restored, the offence is a continuing offence for the purpose of limitation under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

---