Judgment : This is a criminal revision case against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai, dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 274 of 1975, and confirming the conviction of the accused in C.C. No. 564 of 1975 on the file of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pudukkottai. 2. The accused was prosecuted for an offence under section 25 and section 6(1) and 6 (6) of the Tamil Nadu Agucultural Produce Markets Act (XXIII of 1959) (to be referred to hereafter as the Act) and the Rules and Bye-laws framed there under, on the allegation that he being a dealer in groundnut, which is a notified agricultural produce, fraudulently evaded payment of licence fee of Rs.25-50 to the Tiruchirapalli Market Committee, Tiruchirapalli, prescribed by the said Committee as per its Byelaw No. 21 and did not renew the licence for the financial year 1974-75 on or before 30th April, 1974, and thereby contravened the provisions of sections 6 (1) and 6(6) of the Act and the Bye-laws of the Committee. 3. It is alleged that the offence was committed at Alangudy on 1st May, 1974. He was not prosecuted for any subsequent act of his but for his failure to obtain licence on 30th April, 1975. It is seen from the complaint itself that the offence was deemed to have been committed on 1st May, 1974. It is not alleged that subsequently the offence was continuously committed. In fact, the accused cannot be expected to apply for a licence every day. He is not prosecuted for conducting the business without renewing the licence. He has been prosecuted only for not renewing his licence on 30th April, 1974. It is not therefore a continuing offence. The ratio of my Judgment in Superintendent, Regulated Market, Alangudi v. Marimuthu1, is applicable to the facts of the instant case. The complaint in the instant case having been filed on 27th August, 1975, to wit, more than six months after alleged commission of the offence, is barred by section 468, Criminal Procedure Code and therefore, this revision case is allowed, the conviction under section 6 read with section 25 of the Act and the sentence of fine of Rs. 250 in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month are set aside, and the accused is acquitted. 4. 250 in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month are set aside, and the accused is acquitted. 4. Before parting with this case, I must point out that the prosecution fails on account of the laches of the enforcement authority. Why action was not taken in time is a matter to be probed into by the higher authorities concerned. Revision allowed; accused acquitted.