NAVADGI, J. ( 1 ) SINCE the question involved in both the Revision Petitions is same, they are disposed of by this common order. ( 2 ) CRIMINAL Revision Petitions Nos. 49 and 50 of 1985 are filed by Saraswathi Industries Rice mill, Jalapur Camp, Shirwar, by its partner K. Balaraj, son of K. S. Seenaiah (hereinafter referred to as the Mill) arraigned as accused No. 3 in Special Cases Nos. 6 and 10 of 1984 on the file of the Special Judge, Bijapur, They are directed against the common order dated December 20, 1984, made by the Special Judge in Special Cases Nos, 6 and 10 of 1984, negativing the contention urged on behalf of the Mill and other persons arraigned as accused in the said two cases that the Court of the Special Judge had no jurisdiction to try the offences alleged against them. ( 3 ) THE facts relevant for the present purpose, briefly stated, are these: the facts in Special Case No. 6/84 ----------------------------------- (The subject-matter of Crl. R. P. No. 49/1985) the Mill is a partnership concern. Kallur Balaraj, arraigned as Accused-3a, and Kallur omprakash, arraigned as Accused-3b, are its partners. The Mill is a miller within the meaning of the expression given in Clause 2 (f) of the Karnataka Rice and Paddy Procurement (Levy) Order, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the Order ). It is a Rice Mill engaged itself in rice milling operations under the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958. According to the prosecution, the Mill and its partners on 25-12-1983 removed 100 bags of rice from the Mill premises without delivery of the rice relating to the said stock in accordance with sub-clause (2) and without obtaining a release certificate under Clause 9 of the Order, contravening Clause 3 (3) of the Order and sent the said stock of rice to Hukkeri in the Truck bearing registration No. MEI-7421 with Shabuddin, arraigned as A-l (the Driver) and ramakrishna, arraigned as A--2 (the Gumastha working in the Mill ). The Truck was intercepted on 26-12-1983 at 6-30 a. m. by the Circle Inspector of Police, Hungund. The Truck was intercepted on 26-12-1983 at 6-30 a. m. by the Circle Inspector of Police, Hungund. After necessary verification, the Circle Inspector of Police having found the transport of 100 bags of rice by the mill in contravention of Clause 3 (3) and Clause 9 of the Order, took up seizure proceedings and lodged a complaint thereafter against the Driver, the Gumastha, the Mill and its partners. The sub-Inspector of Police, Hungund, on the basis of the complaint, registered a case in Crime No. 105 of 1983 for contravention of the provisions of the Order read with Sections 3 and 7 of the essential Commodities Act (the Act for short ). On completion of investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed for contravention of Clauses 3 and 9 of the Order punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Act. ( 4 ) THE Learned Special Judge framed charges against the petitioner and other accused persons for the contraventions alleged against them. The Mill and the other persons pleaded not guilty to the contraventions charged. ( 5 ) WHEN the case had been set down for trial, an application came to be filed contending, inter alia, that the contraventions being not continuing offences, the Court of the Special Judge had no jurisdiction to try the contraventions. The Learned Special Judge, on going through the various clauses in the Order, and the law bearing on the question, rejected the contention and held that the Court had jurisdiction to try the contraventions. It is this order that is challenged in these criminal Revision Petitions. ( 6 ) THE Facts in Special Case No. 10/84 (The subject-matter of Crl. R. P. No. 50/1985) this case relates to the transport of 100 bags of rice in another Truck by the Mill in contravention of Clauses 3 (3) and 9 of the Order. It appears, both the Trucks were going together and the Trucks carrying 100 bags of rice was intercepted by the Circle Inspector of Police, hungund. In respect of this matter also, the Circle Inspector of Police (sic)ook up seizure proceedings. The criminal law was set in motion and on completion of investigation, the Mill, its partners, Kallur Omprakash, Kallur Balaraj, the Driver and two others were charge-sheeted. In respect of this matter also, the Circle Inspector of Police (sic)ook up seizure proceedings. The criminal law was set in motion and on completion of investigation, the Mill, its partners, Kallur Omprakash, Kallur Balaraj, the Driver and two others were charge-sheeted. ( 7 ) APPLICATION similar to the one filed in Special Case No, 6/84 was filed in Special Case No. 10 of 1984 with the same grounds as urged in Special Case No, 6 of 1984. The Learned Special judge, by the common order, dismissed the two applications. ( 8 ) THE Learned Counsel for the Mill in both the petitions, submitted that a Release Certificate under Clause 9 of the Order is required to transport rice or paddy to any place outside the State and that obtainment of Release Certificate being optional for the Miller or Dealer, as the case may be, movement of rice or paddy without obtaining Release Certificate within the State of karnataka not being prohibited or restricted, non-obtainment of Release Certificate under Clause 9 would not attract Section 7 of the Act. It was submitted further that removal of stock of rice from the Mill premises without delivery of the rice relating to such stock in accordance with Sub-clause (2) and obtaining a Release certificate under Clause 9 would not be a continuing offence and the moment the stock of rice is removed from the Mill premises, the offence would be complete. According to the Learned counsel for the petitioner, the stock of rice found loaded in the two Trucks had been removed from the premises of the Mill at Jalapur Camp ; that, therefore, the Court which would have jurisdiction to try the contraventions alleged would be the Court of the Special Judge, Raichur and that the Court of the Special Judge at Bijapur would be having no jurisdiction. ( 9 ) THE Learned High Court Government Pleader for the State submitted that obtaimnent of a release Certificate under Clause 9 would be required for movement and disposal of levy free rice or paddy ; and that the movement of rice or paddy without the Release Certificate would amount to contravention of Clause 9 of the Order attracting the penal consequences stated in section 7 of the Act. According to him, movement of rice or paddy without the Release certificate would be a continuing offence. According to him, movement of rice or paddy without the Release certificate would be a continuing offence. He further submitted that removal of the stock of rice from the Mill premises without delivery of the rice relating to such stock in accordance with sub-clause (2) and obtaining a Release Certificate under Clause 9 would be a continuing contravention and it would continue till the Miller delivers the rice relating to such stock in accordance with Sub-clause (2) and obtains a Release Certificate. ( 10 ) THE questions that need answer in the context of the submissions made at the Bar are: 1) Whether movement of rice or paddy (within the State of Karnataka) without obtaining a release Certificate would constitute contravention of Clause 9 of the Order ? If so, whether such movement would be a continuing offence till the Release Certificate is obtained ? 2) Whether contravention of Clause 3 (3) of the Order is a continuing contravention till the Miller complies with Sub-Clause 3 (2) and Clause 9 of the Order ? ( 11 ) THE order is the one passed by the Government of Karnataka in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Act and the Essential Commodities Act, 1976 read with Order No. G. S. R, 316 (E), dated the 20th June, 1972 and G. S. R. 800, dated 9th June, 1978 of the government of India in the Ministry of Agriculture (Department of Food) and with the prior concurrence of the Central Government. It appears, the Order provides for the objects to be achieved. stated in Section 3 (2) (f) of the Act. It is a piece of legislation made in the exercise of legislative power. It is a legislative measure made by the State Government as a delegate exercising legislative power conferred upon it by a Parliamentary Statute. ( 12 ) FOR the District of Bijapur, a Special Court has been constituted and the (Principal) District and Sessions Judge, Bijapur, is designated as the Special Judge. ( 13 ) THE expression "continuing offence" is not defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure (the code for short ). Expressions which do not have a fixed connotation or a static import are difficult to define. It is difficult to put the concept of continuing offence in a strait-jacket. ( 13 ) THE expression "continuing offence" is not defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure (the code for short ). Expressions which do not have a fixed connotation or a static import are difficult to define. It is difficult to put the concept of continuing offence in a strait-jacket. In state of Bihar v. Deokaran Nenshi, AIR1973 SC 908 , 1973 (0 )BLJR741 , 1973 Crilj347 , [1973 (26 )FLR77 ], (1972 )2 SCC890 , [1973 ]1 SCR1004 the respondents who were owners of a stone quarry in the City of Bombay were required to forward certain annual returns in respect of the preceding year, on or before January 21 in each year. Failure to forward the returns as required is punishable under Section 66 of the Mines Act, 1952. The respondents having failed to furnish the returns by the due date, a complaint came to be filed against them in the Court of competent jurisdiction. One of the contentions raised by the respondents was that the complaint was barred by limitation under Section 79 of the Mines Act which provided that no Court shall take cognizance of the offence under that Act unless the complaint was filed within 6 months of the date of the offence. The Explanation to Section 79 provided that if the offence in question was a continuing offence, the period of limitation shall be computed with reference to every part of the time during which the said offence continued. The Supreme Court held that the infringement, which occurred on January 21 of the relevant year, was complete when the owner failed to furnish the annual returns on that date Since the regulation did not lay down that the owner would be guilty of an offence if he continued to work the mine without finishing the returns, the offence was non-continuing and, therefore, the complaint was time barred. The Supreme Court observed: "a 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 involved 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. It is one of those offences which arises out of a failure to obey or comply with a rule or its requirement and which involved 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 offences 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. In the case of a continuing offence, there is thus the ingredient of continuance of the offence which is absent in the case of an offence which takes place when an act or omission is committed once and for all. " ( 14 ) IN Best v. Butler and Fitzquibbon, (1932)2 KB 108, the English Trade Union Act, 1871 made it penal for an officer or a member of a Trade Union to wilfully withhold any money, books, etc. , of the Trade Union. It was held in that case that the offence of withholding the money was a continuing offence, the basis of the decision evidently being that every day that the moneys were wilfully withheld, the offence was committed. ( 15 ) IN Verney v. Mark Fletcher and Sons Ltd. , (1909)1 KB 444 Section 10 (1) of the Factory and workshop Act, 1901 provided that every fly-wheel directly connected with steam, water or other mechanical power must be securely fenced. Section 135 provided the penalty for non-compliance with Section 10 (1), while Section 146 provided that information of the offence shall be laid within three months after the date on which the offence comes to the knowledge of the Inspector. It was held that the breach of Section 10 (1) was a continuing breach and, therefore, the information was in time. Every day that the fly-wheel remained unfenced, the factory was run otherwise than in conformity with the Act of 1901 and, therefore, the offence defined in Section 10 was a continuing offence. It was held that the breach of Section 10 (1) was a continuing breach and, therefore, the information was in time. Every day that the fly-wheel remained unfenced, the factory was run otherwise than in conformity with the Act of 1901 and, therefore, the offence defined in Section 10 was a continuing offence. ( 16 ) IN The London County Council v. Worley, (1894)2 QB 826 Section 85 of the Metropolis management Amendment Act, 1852 prohibited the erection of a building on the side of a new street in certain circumstances, without the consent of the London County Council. The Court construed Section 85 as creating two offences; building to a prohibited height and, continuing such a structure already built after receiving a notice from the County Council. The Court held that the latter offence was a continuing offence. ( 17 ) IN Emperor v. Karsandas, AIR 1942 Bombay 526, Section 390 (1) of the Bombay City municipal Act, 1888 provided that no person shall newly establish in any premises any factory of a certain description without the previous permission of the Commissioner nor shall any person work or allow to be worked any such factory without such permission. It was held by the high Court that establishing a new factory was an offence committed once and for all but, working it without permission was a continuing offence. ( 18 ) IN State of Bombay v. Bhiwandiwala, AIR1955 Bom 161 , (1954 )56 BOMLR1172 , 1955 Crilj666 , ILR1955 Bom 192 , (1956 )II LLJ153 Bom , it was held that the offence of using the premises as a factory without a licence is a continuing offence. ( 19 ) IN State of Bihar v. J. P. Singh, 1963 BLJR 782 the High Court of Patna held that conducting a restaurant without having it registered and without maintaining proper registers were continuing offences. ( 20 ) IN Public Prosecutor v. Veerabhadrappa Lakshminarayana Setty, AIR1953 Mad 204 , (1952 )2 MLJ453 the respondent had failed to construct a pucca dustproof husk chamber as required by Section 14 of the Factories Act. This had been noticed by the inspector of Factories who had inspected it on 5-10-1950. The Inspector had visited the factory again on 24-1-1951 and had found the said defect. He had, therefore, lodged a complaint on 15-3-1951, for an offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act. This had been noticed by the inspector of Factories who had inspected it on 5-10-1950. The Inspector had visited the factory again on 24-1-1951 and had found the said defect. He had, therefore, lodged a complaint on 15-3-1951, for an offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act. The question was whether the complaint was barred by limitation as being beyond three months of the first visit of the inspector on 5-10-1950. The High Court of Madras held that the offence committed was a continuing one, and when the Inspector visited the factory on the second occasion on 24-1-1951, the offence committed on that date had come to his knowledge on that day and the prosecution having been launched within three months of that date was in time. ( 21 ) THE Supreme Court in Bhagirath Kanoria and ors. , v. State of M. P, AIR1984 SC 1688 , (1984 )3 Complj49 (SC ), 1984 (2 )Crimes441 (SC ), [1984 (49 )FLR382 ], 1984 (2 ) SCALE218 , (1984 )4 SCC222 , [1985 ]1 SCR626 adopting the reasoning in the three english decisions, the decisions of the Bombay High Court in the two cases, and the decision of the Patna High Court in the State of Bihar v. J. P. Singh, 1963 BLJR 782 observed: "'the question whether a particular offence is a continuing offence must necessarily depend upon the language of the statute which creates that offence, the nature of the offence and, above all, the purpose which is intended to be achieved by constituting the particular act as an offence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " ( 22 ) SECTION 7 of the Act penalizes the contravention of any order made under Section 3, which confers upon the Central Government the power to make rules and orders for maintaining or increasing supplies of any essential commodities or for securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices. The order is the one passed by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of the Act, empowered to do so by the Central Government under Section 4 of the Act. The order is the one passed by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of the Act, empowered to do so by the Central Government under Section 4 of the Act. ( 23 ) SECTIONS of the Order deals with delivery of rice/paddy required to be sold to the State government or the purchase agent under Clauses 3, 4 and 6 of the Order. Under Clause 9, every miller and dealer after delivery of the rice or paddy in accordance with Clause 8, may make an application in Form 'c' to the Deputy Commissioner of the District for issue of a Release certificate for movement and disposal of levyfree rice or paddy. Clause 9 (2) deals with the requirements of a valid application while Clause 9 (3) deals with the manner and the form in which the Release Certificate is to be issued: whereas Clause 9 (4) deals with the time within which the application for Release Certificate is to be given and the time within which the stock of rice or paddy in respect of which such Release Certificate is issued, should be disposed of. ( 24 ) IN the cases on hand, the gravamen of the allegations against the Mill and other accused persons is that without delivery of the rice in accordance with Clause 8, they were found transporting 200 bags of rice which was not levy-free. There is no Clause in the Order which makes transport of rice or paddy within the State of Karnataka in respect of of which delivery of levy is not made in accordance with Clause 8 and without obtainment of a Release Certificate, penal. ( 25 ) HAVING regard to the allegations of the prosecution levelled against the Mill and other persons arraigned as accused with it, in the two cases, and the absence of a Clause as stated earlier in the Order, it would be difficult to hold that the Mill in the two cases by transporting 200 bags of rice without paying levy in accordance with Clause 8, contravened Clause 9 of the order. ( 26 ) I, therefore, hold, while disagreeing with the contention of the learned Counsel for the Mill in both the petitions that the Release Certificate under Clause 9 of the Order is required only to transport rice or paddy to any place outside the State as required by Clause 7, movement of rice or paddy without obtaining Release Certificate within the State of Karnataka not being prohibited or restricted, non-obtainment of Release Certificate under Clause 9 would not attract section 7 of the Act; that movement of levy-free rice or paddy within the State of Karnataka without obtaining a Release Certificate would constitute contravention of Clause 9 of the Order; and that in the instant case, on the facts of the case and in view of the assertions of the prosecution, the Mill cannot be said to have committed contravention of Clause 9 of the Order. ( 27 ) IN view of this conclusion of mine, I find it unnecessary to go into the question whether the movement of levy-free rice or paddy within the State of Karnataka without obtaining a Release certificate would be a continuing offence till the Release Certificate is obtained. ( 28 ) A careful reading of Clause 3 (3) of the Order would indicate that to make the contravention complete, nondelivery of the rice relating to the stock of rice in accordance with sub-clause (2), non-obtainment of a Release Certificate under Clause 9 and removal of the stock of rice from the mill premises, are required. ( 29 ) THE prosecution has come-forward in both the cases that the Mill had removed 200 bags of rice from its premises without delivery of the rice relating to the said stock in accordance with sub-clause (2) and without obtaining a Release Certificate under Clause 9. The language of clause 3 (3), the nature of the contravention and the purpose intended to be achieved by constituting the contravention of Clause 3 (3) as an offence would make it clear that the contravention of Clause 3 (3) of the order is not a continuing offence. ( 30 ) REMOVAL of the stock of rice from the Mill premises in contravention of Clause 3 (3) is not susceptible of continuance. ( 30 ) REMOVAL of the stock of rice from the Mill premises in contravention of Clause 3 (3) is not susceptible of continuance. It cannot be said that the removal of stock of rice from the Mill premises in contravention of Clause 3 (3) of the Order continues until the delivery of the rice relating to the stock of rice so removed in accordance with sub-clause (2) and obtainment of a release Certificate under Clause 9 ( 31 ) IN my considered view, there is no ingredient of continuance in the contravention in Clause 3 (3 ). If the stock of rice is removed from the Mill premises without complying with the provisions contained in it, the contravention would be complete. The disobedience to and non-compliance of Clause 3 (3) occurs, once the stock of rice is removed from the Mill premises and would not recur. ( 32 ) ON the face of the clear language employed in Clause 3 (3), it is difficult to agree with the reasoning of the learned Special Judge that without fulfilling the two requirements, if the stock of rice is transported after removal from the Mill premises,it becomes a tainted stock carrying with it the stigma of non-compliance with the provisions of Clause 3 (3) of the Order and that it would be a continuing contravention. I, therefore, hold that contravention of Clause 3 (3) of the order is not a continuing contravention till the Miller complies with Clause 3 (2) and Clause 9 of the Order. ( 33 ) FROM the discussion made above, the resultant position would be that the contravention of clause 3 (3) of the Order in both the cases was complete the moment the Mill removed 200 bags of rice from its premises on 25-12-1983. ( 34 ) IF that be so, finding of 200 bags of rice on 26-12-1983 at Hungund by the Circle Inspector of police, within the jurisdiction of the Court of the Special Judge at Bijapur would not give jurisdiction to the said Court to try the contravention. The Court having jurisdiction to try the contravention alleged would be the Court of the Special Judge at Raichur. ( 35 ) IN the result, for the reasons stated above, I proceed to pass the following order: criminal Revision Petition No. 49 of 1985 is allowed. The Court having jurisdiction to try the contravention alleged would be the Court of the Special Judge at Raichur. ( 35 ) IN the result, for the reasons stated above, I proceed to pass the following order: criminal Revision Petition No. 49 of 1985 is allowed. The order dated 20-12 1984 passed by the special Judge, Bijapur in Special Case No. 6 of 1984 is hereby set-aside. The Learned Special judge shall take further steps in Special Case No. 6 of 1984 to close the proceedings in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. Criminal Revision Petition No. 50 of 1985 is allowed. The order dated 20-12-1984 passed by the special Judge, Bijapur in Special Case No. 10 of 1984 is hereby set-aside. The Learned Special judge shall take further steps in Special Case No. 10 of 1984 to close the proceedings in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this order. ( 36 ) IT would be open to the prosecution to take back the charge-sheets and present them to the court of the Special Judge at Raichur, if so advised and if permissible in law.