N. G. SHELAT, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of an order passed on 13th September 1966 by Mr. H. C. Shah Judicial Magistrate First Class Cambay in Criminal Case No. 728 of 1966 (Summary Case No. 1489 of 1966) whereby the respondent accused came to be acquitted under sec. 245 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code in respect of an offence under sec. 52 (a) read with sec. 7 (1) of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act 1948 as applied to the State of Gujarat. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case are quite simple. The Oil and Natural Gas Commission was established under Oil and Natural Gas Commission Act 1959 and it has its office at Cambay. The clearing and forwarding section thereof was started in 1960 within the Municipal limits of Cambay to which the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act hereinafter referred to as the `act came to be applied with effect from 1-4-1950. Though the aforesaid section of the O. N. G. C. was started in the year 1960 it was not registered as required under sec. 7 (1) of the Act. It appears that a notice dated 11-6-65 as to the resolution passed by the Executive Committee of the Municipality of Cambay was sent to the Director of the O. N. G. C. at Cambay drawing his attention about the same having not been registered within the time limit prescribed under sec. 7 (4) of the Act. No steps appear to have been taken in that direction and that led the Chief Officer of the Municipality of Cambay to send another letter to the Director of the O. N. G. C. Cambay calling upon him to get the same registered within 3 days from the date of the receipt of his letter failing which the criminal proceedings under sec. 7 (1) of the Act would be taken against him. That letter is at Ex. 14 and is dated 7-12-65. That led that Assistant Manager of the clearing and forwarding section of the O. N. G. C. at Cambay to send an application form duly filled in with a request to register the same under the provisions of the Act. The registration fee amounting to Rs. 2. 50 was also sent therewith. 14 and is dated 7-12-65. That led that Assistant Manager of the clearing and forwarding section of the O. N. G. C. at Cambay to send an application form duly filled in with a request to register the same under the provisions of the Act. The registration fee amounting to Rs. 2. 50 was also sent therewith. It was also declared by the Manager Oil and Natural Gas Commission that he was running an office of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission at Railway Yard Cambay under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act. The statement under sec. 7 (1) was duly filled in by the Manager Mr. N. Vishwanathan of the said Commission. ( 3 ) MR. Rasiklal Mansukhlal Divanji has been working as an Inspector appointed under the provisions of the Act and he has been in the service of the Municipality of Cambay. After verifying the application received from the respondent he found that the establishment was started in the year 1960. Thereupon he made a report to the Executive Committee for obtaining sanction for the prosecution of the accused for breach of the provisions contained in sec. 7 (1) of the Act. A resolution No. 832 dated 11 was passed by the Managing Committee whereby the sanction as required under sec. 52 of the Act was accorded for prosecuting Shri Vishwanathan the Manager of the establishment for contravening the provisions of sec. 7 (1) of the Act so as to be liable for an offence under sec. 52 of the Act. That resolution is at Ex. 13 and it is dated 11-3-66. In pursuance thereof the complaint was filed by the Inspector Shri Rasikbhai at Ex. 28 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Cambay. The accusation against the accused was that he had commenced the work of his establishment relating to the clearing and forwarding section of the O. N. G. C. at Cambay since 1960 and that he had failed to send to the Inspector of the local area the statement in prescribed form together with the registration fees within 30 days of the commencement and to obtain the registration certificate and that way made himself liable for an offence under sec. 52 (a) read with sec. 7 (1) of the Act. 52 (a) read with sec. 7 (1) of the Act. The accused denied to have committed any offence as according to him it was not an establishment contemplated under the Act and that complaint filed against him was not in time. The learned Magistrate on a consideration of the evidence adduced in the case found that the clearing and forwarding section of the O. N. G. C. at Cambay was not an establishment under sec. 3 (8) of the Act and therefore it was not required to be registered under sec. 7 (1) of the Act. On a question of bar of limitation under sec. 61 of the Act he held that the offence of non-registration of the establishment was in the nature of a continuing offence and that the commission of the offence took place from day-to-day. On that basis he found that the complaint was in time. In the result the learned Magistrate found the offence not established against the respondent-accused and acquitted him. Feeling dissatisfied with that order the State has come in appeal before this Court. ( 4 ) BEFORE Mr. Chhaya the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader for the State took up the consideration of the question as to whether the clearing and forwarding section of the O. N. G. C. at Cambay fell within the meaning of the term establishment defined in the Act Mr. Shah the learned advocate for the respondent requested this Court to consider the other question in respect of which the finding was recorded viz. that the complaint was not barred by time under sec. 61 of the Act. According to him that goes to the root of the matter and in case this Court agrees with him the other question would not arise to be considered. This question has therefore been taken first. Now Mr. Chhaya says that this clearing and forwarding section of the O. N. G. C. is an establishment falling within the definition of sec. 2 (8) of the Act and obligation to have the same registered would arise on the employer or the Manager under sec. 7 (1) of the Act. Sec. 7 (1) provides as under :-7 Within the period specified in sub-sec. 2 (8) of the Act and obligation to have the same registered would arise on the employer or the Manager under sec. 7 (1) of the Act. Sec. 7 (1) provides as under :-7 Within the period specified in sub-sec. (4) the employer of every establishment shall send to the Inspector of the local area concerned a statement in a prescribed form together with such fees as may be prescribed containing (a) the name of the employer and the manager if any; (b) the post address of the establishment; (c) the name if any of the establishment (d) the category of the establishment i. e. whether it is a shop commercial establishment residential hotel restaurant eating house theatre or other place of public amusement or entertainment:- and (e) such other particulars as may be prescribed. SUB-SEC. (4) of sec. 7 provides that the statement together with the fees shall be sent within thirty days from the date mentioned in column 2 viz. the date on which the section comes to be applied in the local area in respect of an establishment existing in local area. Non-compliance of this provision contained in sec. 7 (1) is made punishable under sec. 52 (a) of the Act which says that if any employer fails to send to the Inspector a statement within the period specified in sec. 7 the employer and the manager shall on conviction each be punished with the fine which shall not be less then twenty-five rupees and which may extend to two hundred and fifty rupees; provided that if the contravention of the provisions of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 7 is continued after the expiry of the tenth day after conviction the employer shall on conviction be punished with a further fine which may extend to ten rupees for each day on which the contravention is so continued. Then comes the relevant sec. 61 which says that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act or any rule or order made thereunder unless complaint thereof is made within three months from the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of an Inspector. Then comes the relevant sec. 61 which says that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act or any rule or order made thereunder unless complaint thereof is made within three months from the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of an Inspector. Now before we actually consider the question as to whether the offence was in the nature of a continuing one or not we may first determine as to whether the complainant Inspector had come to know about the alleged commission of the offence and if so to fix the starting point for commencing the prosecution of the accused before the Court. I have already made reference to the correspondence that appeared to have taken place between the parties and more particularly the letter Ex. 14 dated 7-12-65 sent by the Chief Officer of the Cambay Municipality to the respondent-accused wherein a clear reference about the resolution No. 263 dated 11-6-65 passed by the Executive Committee of the Municipality has been made and under which a notice was sent to the respondent for non-registration of the alleged establishment within the time prescribed for the same. Obviously therefore the Municipality of Cambay had come to know about the existence of this establishment run by the respondent long before 11-6-65 let alone the admission of the complainant saying that this establishment was started in the year 1960. In fact Mr. Rasiklal the Inspector of the Municipality has clearly admitted in his cross-examination that the establishment had commenced its work before 11-6-65 and that there was no doubt about the fact that it required registration. Then he has stated that it was not that as there was doubt that they took action only after the respondent made the application. Thus at any rate on 11-6-65 the Municipality and its officers including the complainant Inspector knew about the non-registration of this establishment and incidentally the respondent having committed an offence in respect thereof under sec. 52 (a) read with sec. 7 (1) of the Act. That can therefore be taken to be the starting point for the purpose of counting the period of limitation provided under sec. 61 of the Act for any complaint to be filed in respect thereof. The complaint was filed on 18-3-66 and since it was beyond the period of three months provided under sec. 7 (1) of the Act. That can therefore be taken to be the starting point for the purpose of counting the period of limitation provided under sec. 61 of the Act for any complaint to be filed in respect thereof. The complaint was filed on 18-3-66 and since it was beyond the period of three months provided under sec. 61 it was barred by time. The Court could not take cognizance of any such offence under sec. 61 of the Act. ( 5 ) THE learned Magistrate however took the view that this was in the nature of a continuing offence and therefore there was hardly any question of the limitation contemplated under sec. 61 of the Act. According to him the complaint filed on 18-3-66 in respect of an offence said to have been committed by the respondent-accused on 1-1-66 the date on which he had sent statement contemplated under sec. 7 (1) of the Act for obtaining the registration of the said establishment is in the nature of a continuing offence. As to how the learned Magistrate thought it to be in the nature of a continuing offence he has given no reasons whatsoever It was however pointed out by Mr. Chhaya the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader for the State that the proviso to sec. 52 of the Act indicates the nature of such an offence as of a continuing character till such time that any such employer or manager of the establishment does not comply with the requirements of registration under sec. 7 (1) of the Act. The proviso does not in any way suggest any breach of the provisions contained in sec. 7 (1) of the Act as in any way of a continuing nature and all that it contemplates is that if the contravention of the provisions of sub-sec. (1) of sec. 7 is continued after the expiry of the tenth day after conviction the employer shall on conviction be punished with a further fine which may extend to ten rupees for each day on which the contravention is so continued. In other words all that it provides is to entitle the Inspector to take action against any such employer who continues to commit the same breach even after he has been already convicted by the Court for the said offence under sec. 7 (1) of the Act. In other words all that it provides is to entitle the Inspector to take action against any such employer who continues to commit the same breach even after he has been already convicted by the Court for the said offence under sec. 7 (1) of the Act. On the contrary the right to take action with the purpose of seeing that the employer complies with the provision of sec. 7 (1) of the Act is given but that can only be done after his conviction is obtained for the first offence. This proviso does not take away the effect of the period of limitation contemplated under sec. 61 of the Act for filing a complaint in respect thereof against any such person. The object behind providing for such period of limitation for filing any such complaint in Court appears to be of a two-fold character. One is to see that the offence will not be allowed to become state and secondly since the offences of this nature are not serious in fact they are of a technical or administrative nature such bar is necessary to avoid any harassment to the persons. Such a bar of limitation is also meant to keep the prosecuting authorities very vigilant and active if they want to bring the offenders to book and see that the provisions of the Act are properly observed. The Legislature has by making the necessary amendment appears to have enlarged the scope of the provision by saying that the period of three months shall commence from the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of the Inspector. The essence of sec. 61 therefore is that if any employer or manager of any such establishment were to be prosecuted under sec. 52 (a) read with sec. 7 (1) of the Act it must be so done within a period of three months from the date when the existence of any such establishment came to be known to the Inspector in charge of the case. It was pointed out by Mr. Chhaya the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader that if no such complaint were filed within any such period fixed under sec. 61 of the Act there is no other power to make any such employer or Manager of the establishment to obey and follow the requirements contemplated under sec. It was pointed out by Mr. Chhaya the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader that if no such complaint were filed within any such period fixed under sec. 61 of the Act there is no other power to make any such employer or Manager of the establishment to obey and follow the requirements contemplated under sec. 7 (1) of the Act and when that is so there must be some machinery to make them get their establishment registered and that can only be done if such an offence were treated as of a continuing nature. We find no doubt no provision whereby any such Inspector or authority under the Act can enforce the requirement to be carried out by any such employer or manager of the establishment. But if we were to peruse the provisions of the Act it appears that by no provision in the Act registration is made the basis of the application of the other provisions of the Act provided no doubt the establishment would be subject to such provisions of the Act. It is not that other provisions which are intended for the benefit of the workers etc. cannot be applied on the ground that a particular establishment has not been registered under sec. 7 (1) of the Act. Any establishment falling within sec. 2 (8) of the Act would remain the same whether it is registered or not and in case it is not registered it remains open to the State Government or an Inspector appointed under the Act within the local limits for which he is appointed to ascertain the same by even entering at all reasonable times and with such assistants if any being persons in the service of the Government or of any local authority as he thinks fit any place which is or which he has reason to believe is an establishment as contemplated under sec. 49 (a) of the Act. Clause (b) thereof then empowers him to make such examination of the premises and of any prescribed registers records and notices and take on the spot or otherwise evidence of any persons as he may deem necessary for carrying out the purposes of the Act. In the event of any such Inspector having reason to suspect that any employer of an establishment to which the Act applies has committed an offence punishable under sec. In the event of any such Inspector having reason to suspect that any employer of an establishment to which the Act applies has committed an offence punishable under sec. 52 or 55 he may seize with the previous permissions of such authority as may be prescribed such registers records or other documents of the employer as he may consider necessary or for prosecution and then clause (c) thereof says that he can exercise such other powers as may be necessary for carrying out the purposes of the Act. This section nowhere says that he cannot exercise his powers under sec. 49 in respect of any establishment which has not been registered under the provisions of the Act. The powers of the Inspector can be exercised if there existed any such establishment which falls within the ambit of the provisions of this Act and he can ascertain whether the other provisions of the Act so applied are carried out by the same. In case of any action taken against any such employer or manager of the establishment it would be no doubt open to the accused to say that it was not an establishment falling under sec. 2 (8) of the Act. But that does not mean that the Inspector cannot take any such action for the enforcement of other provisions against any such establishment under the Act. As I said above the registration of an establishment is not made a condition precedent before taking any action for breach of the provisions of the Act. If therefore there is no specific provision for enforcing registration thereof it cannot make non-registration of the establishment a continuing offence. If the Inspector wants to so enforce by following the proviso to that section he must obtain first the conviction of the owner of the establishment and for that he must file the complaint within the period provided in sec. 61 of the Act. If he does not of his own get it registered and if for some reason the Inspector fails to take action for non-registration thereof within certain time prescribed there is nothing to prevent the Inspector to gather information and register the establishment in his record. But it is clear that on that ground it cannot be taken as a continuing offence so as to treat this period prescribed for filing the complaint in Court as non-existent. But it is clear that on that ground it cannot be taken as a continuing offence so as to treat this period prescribed for filing the complaint in Court as non-existent. If therefore he were to file a complaint after a period of three months from the date of his knowledge of its existence the Court is not entitled to take cognizance of any such offence as the complaint can be said to be barred by law under sec. 61 of the Act The complaint was therefore barred by time and liable to be rejected. The finding in that respect arrived at by the learned Magistrate is not correct. No cognizance of the offence can therefore be taken by the Court and the accused was liable to be discharged. ( 6 ) IN this view of the matter it becomes unnecessary to go into the question whether the clearing and forwarding section of the O. N. G. C. at Cambay is an Establishment as contemplated under sec. 2 (8) of the Act. The learned advocates appearing for both the sides agree that the finding of the Court that it did not amount to establishment under sec. 2 (8) of the Act should not be treated as final and that it would be open to a challenge in Court by the accused since we do not go into that question. ( 7 ) IN the result therefore the order passed by the learned Magistrate stands and the complaint is dismissed. .