Judgment A complaint was filed under S. 551(5) of the Companies Act, 1956, against the petitioner. It was alleged that the accused was appointed liquidator. But he intentionally did not submit statement for the period from 6.3.1974 to 5.9.1974. Before: the learned Magistrate an objection was raised that there was non-compliance with the provisions of Ss. 454, 485, 488 and 500(2) of the Companies Act. Another objection was taken that in view of the provisions of S. 468 of the new Criminal Procedure Code the case was barred by limitation. The learned Magistrate stated that he would not decide the first question at the stage of that proceedings. He turned down 1he objection on the point of limitation and this gave rise to the present Rule. 2. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the accused petitioner has canvassed only question of limitation. It has been stated that in view of the provisions of sub-so (5) of S.551 of the Companies 'Act, for the liquidator's alleged failure to submit statement the court can impose only a fine. Section 468(2)(a) says that in cases where only a fine call be imposed, the period of limitation for filing a criminal case is only six months. Here according to the petition of complaint the period is from 6.3.1974 to 5.9.1974. But the complaint was filed on 8.1.1977. The complainant himself stated that the present petitioner failed to submit account for the period from 6.9.1971 to 5.9.1972, 6.9.1972 to 5.3.1973, 6.3.1973 to 5.9.1973 and 6.9.1973 to 5.9.1974. The institution of specific and separate cases for distinct and separate periods is a pointer that even the complainant opposite party has accepted the position that the accused committed separate and distinct offences for such separate periods. After the completion of each alleged offence only a fine can be imposed. Such offence is, therefore, cOP1mitted once for all and it is not a continuing offence. Reference has been made to the well-known decision of Shelat, J, in the case State of Bihar v. Deokaran reported in AIR. 1973 SC 908 at pages 909 and 910. That case shows what a continuing offence is. Here the statement was not submitted for the period from 6.3.1974 to 5.9.1974. So the statutory period of six months is over, within the meaning of S. 468(2)(a) of the new Cr.P.C. and hence the court should hold that the case is time-barred. . 1973 SC 908 at pages 909 and 910. That case shows what a continuing offence is. Here the statement was not submitted for the period from 6.3.1974 to 5.9.1974. So the statutory period of six months is over, within the meaning of S. 468(2)(a) of the new Cr.P.C. and hence the court should hold that the case is time-barred. . 3. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party has contended that the learned Magistrate rightly held that it was not a continuing offence. Hence the bar of limitation is not applicable. 4. In Deokaran's case it has been stated that continuing offence is one which is susceptible of continuance and is distinguishable from the one which is committed once and for all. It is one of those offences which arises out of a failure to obey or comply with a rule or its requirement and which involves a penalty, the liability for which continues until the rule or its requirement is obeyed or complied with. On every occasion that such disobedience or non-compliance occurs and recurs, there is the offence committed. The distinction between the two kinds of offence is between an act or omission, which constitutes an offence once and for all and an act or omission which continues and therefore constitutes a fresh offence every time or occasion on which it continues. Let the test laid down in that case be applied to the facts of this case. 5. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has also referred to the case of Devidayal v. D. N. Das in 1978 CHN 224 at page 229 to show that where the accused himself is a defaulter for a particular month as he failed to pay contribution of the administrative charges and also to submit a return, his subsequent payment for the dues of that month would not purge him of the offence already committed and it cannot be .said that he continues to be accused till dues are paid by him. That case is clearly distinguishable because there the offence was committed once and for all and it was not a continuing offence. 6. The aforesaid case of State of Bihar v. Deokaran was decided on interpretation of the provisions of S.66 of the Mines Act. 1932. There the offence under S. 66 of the Act was not a continuing offence. That case is clearly distinguishable because there the offence was committed once and for all and it was not a continuing offence. 6. The aforesaid case of State of Bihar v. Deokaran was decided on interpretation of the provisions of S.66 of the Mines Act. 1932. There the offence under S. 66 of the Act was not a continuing offence. After that judgment was delivered, the Mines Act had to be amended 7. Sub-section (j) of S. 551 of the Company's Act says that if the liquidator fails to comply with any of the requirements of the section, he shall be punishable with •fine which may extend to Rs.500.00 for every day during which failure continues. Of course, the complainant treated different periods as separate and distinct ones. But the complainant’s way of thinking or treatment of the matter cannot alter the law of the land because the matter has to be decided by a Court of law. 8. It is pertinent to point out that in the paragraph 6 of the petition of complaint there was a clear averment that the offence was a continuing one. So two kind of averments have been made by the complainant. Sub-section (5) of S.551 of the Act itself indicates that the offence is continuing one. So it is one of the cases which comes within the test laid down by Shelat, J, in the case of State of Bihar v. Deokaran because the present case "involves a penalty, the liability for which continues until the rule or .its requirement .is obeyed or complied with." Hence the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the petitioner cannot be accepted. I, therefore, find that the present matter is not barred by limitation and the same is a continuing offence. The Rule is therefore, discharged. Rule discharged.