JUDGMENT The Commissioner and Special Officer, Machilipatnam Municipality is the petitioner herein. The respondent-accused was prosecuted for offences punishable under section 340 read with228 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities, Act. The trial Court convicted the respondent-accused and sentenced her to pay a fine of Rs. 100 in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month The respondent accused preferred an appeal and the appellate Court allowed the appeal and acquitted her, holding that the prosecution is barred by limitation. 2. Before the trial Court it was contended on behalf of the Municipality that the prosecution is not barred by limitation as it is within six months as provided under section 468 (3), Criminal Procedure Code. Before the appellate Court it was contended on behalf of the accused that there is a special provision in section 366 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act prescribing limitation and that when there is a special enactment the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, cannot be applied. The learned Sessions Judge accepted this contention and held that the prosecution is barred by limitation, inasmuch as it was launched beyond three months as provided in section 366 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act. 3. In this revision case Sri D, Venkata Reddy, learned Counsel for the Municipality submits that the lower appellate Court has over-looked the proviso to section 360 and since in the instant case the offence committed is continuing one the prosecution could be launched within one year as provided under the proviso Section 366 reads thus: “366. Persons empowered to prosecute.- Subject to the provisions of section 365, no per on shall be tried for any offence against the provisions of this Act, or of any rule or bye- aw made under it, unless complaint is male by the (Commissioner) or by a person expressly authorised in this behalf by the (Council) within three months of the Commission of the offence. But nothing therein shall affect the provisions of the (Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Central Act V of 1973) in regard to the powers of certain Magistrates to take cognizance of offences upon information received or upon their own knowledge or suspicion; “Provided that failure to take out a licence, obtain permission or secure registration under this Act shall for the purpose of 1 his section, he deemed a continuing offence until the expiration of the period, if any, for which the licence, permission or registration is required and if no period is specified, complaint may be made at any time within twelve months from the commencement of the offence”. It can be seen that under the section the prosecution can be launched within three months of the commission of the offence in respect of any provisions of the Act or any rule or bye-law made under it. But the provision lays down that failure to take out a licence and obtain a permission or secure registration under the Act, shall for purposes of section 366 shall be deemed to be a continuing offence until the expiration of the period, if any, and if no period is specified, compliant may be made at any time within 12 months from the commencement of the offence. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the instant case the accused constructed a Verandah without permission, and therefore, as laid down under section 211 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act what she committed is a continuing offence. 4. Section 211 lays down that construction or re-construction of the building shall not be taken unless and until the Commissioner has granted permission for the execution of the work. A reading of section 211 read with rule 2 of the Building Rules, makes it clear that permission is necessary for reconstruction or even for alteration and additions and therefore in such a case the proviso to section 366 has to be made applicable, and since alteration does not amount to taking a licence no period can be prescribed and hence the prosecution can be launched within 12 months as per the proviso to section 366 of the Act. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the Municipalities that in respect of any of the contraventions of section 211 or rule 2 of the Building Rules, the prosecution can be launched within 12 months from the commencement of the offence, has to be accepted. 5. However in the instant case there was an approved plan already and now an alteration was made without permission. Strictly speaking this may be a contravention of the provisions of sections of section 211, read with rule 2 of the building rules. But unfortunately for the prosecution a notice was issued under section 228 and the prosecution also was under sections 228 read with340. Section 228 contemplates giving a notice and calling upon the person concerned to demolish. But that is a different contravention. If there is a contravention of the direction to demolish the proviso to section 366 is not attracted but the main section 366 is attracted and consequently the prosecution has to be launched within three months. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner however submits that the accused has been charged with a wrong provision of law only. But that cannot be a ground for interference. The fact remains that the notice was also issued under section 228 and the prosecution was under section 228 read with 340. In such a case the proviso to section 366 is not attracted. Had the accused been prosecution for contravention of section 211 read with rule 2 of the Building Rules, perhaps the position would have been different. 7. With the above observations the Revision is dismissed. R.S.R. ----- Revision dismissed.