Judgment :- P SATHASIVAM J. Petitioner, Soma Veerappa the 2nd accused in C C Nos. 8522 to 8528 of 1962 on the file of the Eighth Presidency Magistrate, Madras, has filed this petition to revise the order of the Eighth Presidency Magistrate rejecting his petition under section 403, Criminal Procedure Code. Petitioner is the managing director of Tiruvalluvar Velanmai was prosecuted for offense under section 159 read with sections 162 and 223 of the Companies Act in CC No 1 of 1961 on the file of the Additional First Class Magistrate, Devakottai for failure to submit annual return and balance-sheet for the period 1956-1960 and he was acquitted in that case. P W 2 in that case was a clerk in the office of the Registrar of Companies. The present prosecution against the petitioner and others is for the same offense for the period between 1956 and 1959. The learned Eighth Presidency Magistrate has rejected the plea of autrefois acquire raised by the petitioner on two grounds, and in my opinion both the grounds are unbeatable. The first ground is that the period during which the petitioner failed to submit annual return and balance-sheet is different. The prior prosecution was for the period 1955-60 and it covers the period of the prosecution in the present case. If the petitioner had been prosecuted for the subsequent period namely, from 1960 onwards, it could be said that the offense is a continuing is different. The second ground is that the offense is a continuing one. Under section 162 of the Companies Act, if a company fails to comply with any of the provisions contained in section 159, 160 or 161 of the Companies Act, every officer of the company who is in default continues. The company would be committing offenses as soon as it fails to submit annual return or balance-sheet and it is liable to be prosecuted. But if in spite of conviction the company fails to comply with the provisions of the Act it is liable to be punished with a fine of Rs. 50 for each day's default. But in this case the petitioner has been acquitted of the offense under sections 162 and 220 of the Companies Act and there is no question of further default. 50 for each day's default. But in this case the petitioner has been acquitted of the offense under sections 162 and 220 of the Companies Act and there is no question of further default. The plea of autrefois acquit raised by the petitioner is well founded and it is upheld so far as the present prosecution against the petitioner is concerned. The criminal revision case is allowed.