P. A. KULKARNI, J. ( 1 ) THE learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel Shri C. Shivappa, prayed for time. These are all matters pending since 1986. The point involved in these cases is a very simple one which does not require any deeper and serious consideration so far as the facts are concerned. Therefore his request for time is rejected. ( 2 ) CRIMINAL Revision Petition No. 44 of 1986 by the accused is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dt. 30-12-1985 passed by the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore District, Bangalore, in C. C. No. 94 of 1985 convicting the accused under R. 11 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules 1975 and sentencing each of the accused to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- for not submitting the return within the prescribed time and imposing a further fine of Rs. 100/- on each of the accused for not submitting the return from 30-6-1975 till 5-2-1985 being the date of filing of the complaint and in default to pay the fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a month. Criminal Revision Petition No. 51 of 1986 by the accused is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dt. 30-12-1985 passed by the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore District, Bangalore, in C. C. No. 95 of 1985 convicting the accused under R. 11 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules 1975 and sentencing each of the accused to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- for not submitting the return within the prescribed time and imposing a further fine of Rs. 100/- on each of the accused for not submitting the return from 30-6-1976 till 5-2-1985 being the date of filing of the complaint and in default to pay the fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a month. Criminal Revision Petition No. 52 of 1986 by the accused is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dt. 30-12-1985 passed by the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore District, Bangalore, in C. C. No. 96 of 1985 convicting the accused under R. 11 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules 1975 and sentencing each of the accused to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- for not submitting the return within the prescribed time and imposing a further fine of Rs. 100/- for not submitting the return within the prescribed time and imposing a further fine of Rs. 100/- on each of the accused for not submitting the return from 30-6-1977 till 5-2-1985 being the date of filing of the complaint and the default to pay the fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a month. Criminal Revision Petition No. 53 of 1986 by the accused is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dt. 30-12-1985 passed by the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore District, Bangalore, in C. C. No. 97 of 1985 convicting the accused under R. 11 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules 1975 and sentencing each of the accused to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- for not submitting the return within the prescribed time and imposing a further fine of Rs. 100/- on each of the accused for not submitting the return from 30-6-1978 till 5-2-1985 being the date of filing of the complaint and in default to pay the fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a month. Criminal Revision Petition No. 54 of 1986 by the accused is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dt. 30-12-1985 passed by the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore District, Bangalore, in C. C. No. 98 of 1985 convicting the accused under R. 11 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules 1975 and sentencing each of the accused to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- for not submitting the return within the prescribed time and imposing a further fine of Rs. 100/- on each of the accused for not submitting the return from 30-6-1979 till 5-2-1985 being the date of filing of the complaint and in default to pay the fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a month. Criminal Revision Petition No. 55 of 1986 by the accused is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dt. 30-12-1985 passed by the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore District, Bangalore in C. C. No. 99 of 1985 convicting the accused under R. 11 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules 1975 and sentencing each of the accused to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- for not submitting the return within the prescribed time and imposing a further fine of Rs. 100/- for not submitting the return within the prescribed time and imposing a further fine of Rs. 100/- on each of the accused for not submitting the return from 30-6-1980 till 5-2-1985 being the date of filing of the complaint and in default to pay the fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a month. Criminal Revision Petition No. 56 of 1986 by the accused is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dt. 30-12-1985 passed by the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bangalore District, Bangalore, in C. C. No. 100 of 1985 convicting the accused under R. 11 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules 1975 and sentencing each of the accused to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- for not submitting the return within the prescribed time and imposing a further fine of Rs. 100/- on each of the accused for not submitting the return from 30-6-1981 till 5-2-1985 being the date of filing of the complaint and in default to pay the fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a month. ( 3 ) ALL these cases have been filed for not filing the return on or before 30th June of every year. All these cases are filed for not filing the return for the period from 1-7-1973 to 30-6-1974, for the period from 1-7-1974 to 30-6-1975, for the period from 1-7-1975 to 30-6-1976, for the period from 1-7-1976 to 30-6-1977. for the period from 1-7-1977 to 30-6-1978. for the period from 1-7-1978 to 30-6-1979 and for the period from 1-7-1979 to 30-6-1980, on or before 30th June of each concerned year. ( 4 ) RULE 10 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules 1975 reads as : -"return of deposits to be filed with the Registrar:- (1) Every company to which these rules apply, shall on or before the 30th day of June, or every year, file with the Registrar, a return in the form annexed to these rules and furnishing the information contained therein as on the 31st day of March of that year. (2) A copy of the return shall also be simultaneously furnished to the Reserve Bank of India. Therefore R. 10 makes it obligatory on every Company to file the return in respect of the deposits on or before the 30th of June of every year. Rule 11 prescribes punishment for not filing the return as prescribed by R. 10. (2) A copy of the return shall also be simultaneously furnished to the Reserve Bank of India. Therefore R. 10 makes it obligatory on every Company to file the return in respect of the deposits on or before the 30th of June of every year. Rule 11 prescribes punishment for not filing the return as prescribed by R. 10. R. 11 reads as : - "penalty :- If a company or any other person contravenes any provision of these rules for which no punishment is provided in the Act, the company and every officer of the company who is in default or such other person shall be punishable with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees and where the contravention is continuing one, with a further fine which may extend to fifty rupees for every day after the first during which the contravention continues. " ( 5 ) THE learned counsel Shri Patil contended that the offence in each case was committed once for all by 30th of June of every year when the return was not filed. According to him, it is an offence committed once for all and it is not a continuing offence. He relied for that purpose on State of Bihar v. Deokaran Nenshi, AIR 1973 SC 908 . It was a case arising under the Mines Act, 1952. Section 66 of the Mines Act 1952, provides that any person omitting inter alia to furnish any return, notice etc. in the prescribed form or manner or at or within the prescribed time required by or under the Act to be made or furnished shall be punishable with fine which may extend to Rs. 1,000/- Section 79, however, lays down that no court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act unless a complaint thereof has been made within six months from the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed or within six months from the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of the Inspector, whichever is later. The Explanation to the Section provides that if the offence in question is a continuing offence, the period of limitation shall be computed with reference to every point of time during which the said offence continues. The Supreme Court laid down in para. The Explanation to the Section provides that if the offence in question is a continuing offence, the period of limitation shall be computed with reference to every point of time during which the said offence continues. The Supreme Court laid down in para. 5 as : -"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 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. "in the said case decided by the Supreme Court, the complaint was not filed within six months. Therefore the Supreme Court held that the complaint was time barred as the offence in question fell within the substantive part of S. 79 and not under the Explanation attached to it. The Supreme Court has stated in Bhagirath Kanoria v. State of M. P. , ( AIR 1984 SC 1688 , in para. 15) as :-"in Emperor v. Karsandas, AIR 1942 Bom 326, S. 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. 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. "in para 18 the Supreme Court has stated as : -"the decision of this Court in State of Bihar v. Deokaran Nenshi, AIR 1973 SC 908 : (1973 Cri LJ 347) to the effect that failure to furnish returns before the due date is not a continuing offence must be confined to cases of failure to furnish returns. It cannot be extended to cases like those before us in which, the contravention is not of a procedural or formal nature and goes against the very grain of the statute under consideration. "in the said Bhagirath Kanoria's case ( AIR 1984 SC 1688 ), the employer's contribution to the Provident Fund had not been paid and therefore the Supreme Court held, looking to the nature of the contravention, that the non-deposit of the contribution by the employer was a continuing offence and it was not an offence once and for all. The view taken by this Court in Provident Fund Inspector v. Dayananda (1979) 1 Kant LJ 324, that non-payment of contribution and non-submission of return as required by paras. 30 (1) and 38 (1) of the E. P. F. Scheme 1952 are offences committed completely on the expiry of the period of 15 days and 25 days contemplated by para. 38 (1) and are not continuing offences, runs contrary to the said Supreme Court decision reported in Bhagirath Kanoria v. State of M. P. , AIR 1984 SC 1688 . R. 10 in this case requires that every company to which the rules apply shall on or before the 30th day of June, of every year, file with the Registrar, a return in the form annexed to the Rules and furnish the information contained therein as on the 31st day of March of that year duly certified by the auditor of the Company. Therefore the non-filing of the return as kid down by R. 10 on or before 30th June of every year, shall be deemed to have been committed once for all. Once the offence is committed under R. 10, it cannot be said that the offence of non-filing of the return on or before 30th June of every year shall continue to be committed till the return is filed. Once the offence is committed under R. 10, it cannot be said that the offence of non-filing of the return on or before 30th June of every year shall continue to be committed till the return is filed. The Rule expects that the return should be filed on or before 30th June of every year. If the return is not filed on or before 30th June of every year, the offence contemplated by R. 10 is complete once for all and there is no question of continuity at all. The learned Senior Central Government standing counsel Shri Shivappa tried to make a distinction between an omission to file a return and the commission of an offence of not filing a return. The distinction is without much substance. What is made punishable by R. 10 is the omission to file the return on or before 30th June of every year. If that omission is made an offence, it will be an offence committed once for all. R. 10 thereafter does not cause any obligation on the company to file the return. Therefore the non-filing of the return is made punishable with fine under R. 11. ( 6 ) RULE 11 which prescribes penalty lays down that if a Company or any other person contravenes any provision of the rules for which no punishment is provided in the Act, the Company and every officer of the Company who is in default or such other person shall be punishable with fine which may extend to Rs. 500/- and where the contravention is a continuing one, with a further fine which may extent to Rs. 50/- for every day after the first during which the contravention continues. According to the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel Shri Shivappa, the prescription of a fine of Rs. 50/- per day even thereafter indicates that the offence contemplated by R. 10 was a continuing one. What Rule 11 prescribes is that the offence as such shall be punishable with fine which may extend to Rs. 500/- and if the offence is a continuing one, the Court can fine the offender with a fine which may extent to Rs. 50/- for every day. Therefore the attraction of the latter part of R. 11 would depend upon as to whether the offence in question is a continuing one. 500/- and if the offence is a continuing one, the Court can fine the offender with a fine which may extent to Rs. 50/- for every day. Therefore the attraction of the latter part of R. 11 would depend upon as to whether the offence in question is a continuing one. If the offence is not a continuing one and if the offence is committed once for all, the question of imposing a fine for every day thereafter will be attracted at all. ( 7 ) AS already stated above by me, the offence of non-filing or the omission to file the return on or before 30th June of every year is complete once for all if the Company or its officer omits to file the return by that day. Therefore the offence covered by R. 11, in my opinion, cannot be said to be a continuing one. The facts involved in these cases are quite similar to the ones reported in State of Bihar v. Deokaran Nenshi, AIR 1973 SC 908 wherein the Company concerned had omitted to furnish the return as required by S. 66 read with S. 79 of the Mines Act. The Supreme Court has clearly laid down that non-filing of the return under S. 66 read with S. 79 of the Mines Act, amounted to an offence which can be committed once for all and it is not a continuing offence. I do not find much difference between the provisions of the Mines Act and the offence covered by R. 10 read with R. 11 of the Companies (Acceptance of Deposits) Rules, 1975. ( 8 ) SECTION 468 Cr. P. C. reads as :-"468. (1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-s. (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation. (2) The period of limitation shall be- (a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only. " (Rest not necessary ). In these cases, the offence is punishable with fine only. Therefore the period of limitation is six months. The period of limitation as laid down by S. 469 Cr. P. C. would commence on the date of the offence. The date of offence in these cases is the one which falls on 30th June of every year. In these cases, the offence is punishable with fine only. Therefore the period of limitation is six months. The period of limitation as laid down by S. 469 Cr. P. C. would commence on the date of the offence. The date of offence in these cases is the one which falls on 30th June of every year. In these cases, the complaints have been filed after the expiry of six months. Therefore all the complaints are barred by limitation. ( 9 ) THE learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel Shri Shivappa appearing for the Central Government submitted that if the Company omits to file the return as contemplated by R. 10 the very object of the said Rule is violated. It is for the rule making authorities concerned to make the necessary provision in the rules. So long as the Rules do not make any provision as to what should happen if the return as contemplated by R. 10 is not complied with, the Courts cannot do anything in the matter. ( 10 ) THEREFORE, under these circumstances, the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused in all these cases are set aside. All the revisions are allowed. The accused in all these cases are acquitted of all the offences levelled against them in these cases. Petitions allowed. --- *** --- .