JUDGMENT V.G. Oak, J. - This reference by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Agra arises out of a prosecution under the Industrial Statistics Act. The prosecution case that Shyamsunderlal accused is occupier of a certain factory. He was called upon to furnish by the end of February 1954, the prescribed return for the year 1953. The accused did not submit the return within the prescribed period. A number of reminders were sent to him in March and April 1954. But the accused did not furnish the prescribed return inspite of the reminders. A complaint was, therefore, filed on 15-5-1954 for his prosecution under the Industrial Statistics Act. The trial was summary. The accused admitted that he did not furnish the prescribed return, and pleaded guilty. The learned Magistrate convicted him under the Industrial Statistics Act. The accused was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100/- plus Rs. 2/- per day for continuing breach from 1-3-1954. The total came to Rs. 282/-. Against this judgment of the learned Magistrate the accused moved a revision application before the Additional Sessions Judge of Agra. The revision was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Agra. He concluded that the fine for the continuing breach was illegal. He has, therefore, made this reference recomending that, the learned Magistrate's order, imposing a fine of Rs. 2/- per day for conti nuing breach from 1-3-1954, should be set aside. I have heard Mr. Gopal Behari in support of the reference. 2. The learned Sessions Judge has referred to a number of decisions in which it was held that, it is not possible to impose a fine for continuing breach unless there has been conviction for the original offence. Hurmat v. King Emperor 1932 A.L.J. 154 was a case u/s 307 of the Municipalities Act. Clause (b) of Section 307 of the Municipalities Act deals with continuing breach. According to Clause (b) of Section 307 of that Act: the said person shall be liable, on conviction before a magistrate, to a fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, and in case of a continuing breach, to a further fine which may extend to five rupees for every day after the date of the first conviction during which the offender is proved to have persisted in the offence. 3. 3. It was therefore held in Hurmat's case that, the expression 'first conviction' suggests that the recurring fine is to be imposed on the second conviction. The magistrate is not justified in presuming that the accused might persist and imposing on him a fine in advance. If the accused does persist in the offence, he is of course liable to be prosecuted a second time, on which occasion the recurring fine can be imposed. These observations support the contention that, recurring fine for a continuing breach can be imposed only in a separate prosecution. 4. In the form used for the summary trial the learned Magistrate mentioned Section 6 of the Industrial Statistics Act as the offence complained of. The offence is punishable u/s 8 of the Act and not u/s 6. Section 8 of the Industrial Statistics Act runs thus: If any person required to furnish any information or any return--(a) wilfully refuses or without lawful excuse neglects to furnish such information or return...he shall for each such offence be punishable with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, and in the case of a continuing offence with a further fire which may extend to two hundred rupees for each day after the first during which the offence continues.... 5. On comparing Section 8 of the Industrial Statistics Act with Section 307 of the Municipalities Act, we find an important difference in the language used in the two sections. According to Clause (b) of Section 307 of the U.P. Municipalities Act, the accused person becomes liable for a continuing breach, if he persisted in the offence after the date of the first conviction. The expression "after the date of the first conviction" does not appear in Section 8 of the Industrial Statistics Act. The expression used in Section 8 of the Industrial Statistics Act is "for each day after the first during which offence continues." The words ''after the first" are somewhat ambiguous. These words may mean either after the first offence or after the first day. In any case there is no reference to any conviction. It is, therefore, open to the court to consider the original offence and the continuing offence in the same trial. In view of the language of Section 8 of this Act, the principle of Hurmat's case and other cases will not apply to the present case. In any case there is no reference to any conviction. It is, therefore, open to the court to consider the original offence and the continuing offence in the same trial. In view of the language of Section 8 of this Act, the principle of Hurmat's case and other cases will not apply to the present case. I am, therefore, of opinion that, it was open to the learned Magistrate to impose a fine for the continuing offence also in addition to the original offence. 6. The learned Magistrate imposed a total fine of Rs. 282/- for the continuing offence. He delivered judgment on 24-7-1954. It appears that he calculated the continuing fine for the period from 1-3-1954 to 24-7-1954. Now it is to be remembered that, the prosecution relates to a complaint filed on 15-5-1954. In that complaint it was stated that the information was not supplied up to 1-3-1954, as originally ordered, and not even later. It was, therefore, stated in the complaint that the accused is guilty of a continuing offence. The reference to the continuing offence, contained in the complaint, must have been with reference to the period between 1-3-1954 & 15-4-54. When the accused pleaded guilty, he must have pleaded with reference to the complaint. It was not, therefore, proper to impose the recurring fine for the period subsequent to the complaint. The continuing breach continued for a period of seventy four days between 1-3-1954 and the date of the complaint. The accused could be fined for the continuing breach for a period of seventy four days, at the rate of Rs. 2/- per day. The total fine for the continuing breach comes to Rs. 148/-. This will be in addition to the fine of Rs. 100/- for the original offence. 7. The reference is partly accepted. I uphold Shyamsunderlal's convition u/s 8 of the Industrial Statistics Act both for the original offence and the continuing breach. The fine of Rs. 282/- for the continuing breach is reduced to the sum of Rs. 148/-. The fine of Rs. 100/- will stand. The excess fine already paid shall be refunded.