JUDGMENT - MANE A.D., J.:---This Criminal Revision Application has been directed against an order dated January 12, 1988, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded, in rejecting the petitioner's revision petition which he had preferred against the order dated October 15,1987, passed by the learned Chief judicial Magistrate, Nanded, under section 630 of Companies Act. 2. The facts are simple. The petitioner was an employee of respondent No. 1 the National Textile Corporation which is a company registered under Indian Companies Act. The Nanded, Textile Mill is a working unit of respondent No. 1. The petitioner was occupying Quarter No. 57 of the Nanded Textile Mill as an employee of the Corporation. The petitioner retired from service on January 2nd, 1980, but, has failed to vacate the quarter. The respondent Corporation, therefore, had called upon him to vacate the quarter by issuing notice through Advocate on November 5, 1986 but he did not comply with the requisition contained in the above notice. Therefore, a complaint was filed by the Assistant Administrative Officer duly authorised by Chief Executive Officer of the respondent No. 1-Corporation. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of an offence punishable under section 630 of Companies Act. 3. Apart from technical pleas by the petitioner, the petitioner has stated that he was employee of Usmanshahi Mill. It may be stated that the said mill was taken over by the respondent Corporation by virtue of Nationalisation Act passed by the Government of India on April 1st, 1974. Next, the petitioner stated that he was called from Indore to work at Nanded by Usmanshahi Mill. At that time the company had assure him that he will be provided free quarter and same was to be transferred in his name. In other word, according to him he has become tenant of the first respondent Corporation. 4. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after considering the evidence adduced by the complainant has come to the conclusion that the petitioner was allotted quarter as an employee of respondent Corporation and as per family form (Ex. 13) executed by him the petitioner has agreed to contribute Rs. 6/- towards amenities and vacate the quarter on either his discharge from service or on his retirement from service. 13) executed by him the petitioner has agreed to contribute Rs. 6/- towards amenities and vacate the quarter on either his discharge from service or on his retirement from service. In the circumstances, it has been held that the petitioner made himself liable to be punished under section 630 of the Companies Act for withholding the quarter after retirement. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, therefore, directed the petitioner to pay fine of Rs. 200/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Further, it has directed that the petitioner should vacate the quarter on or before December 31st, 1987, and on his failure to do so, he reserved order for separate sentence under section 630(2) of the Act. 5. In revision petition preferred by the petitioner, the learned Additional Sessions Judge concurred with the finding recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate while rejecting the contention of the petitioner that the prosecution was vitiated for want of proper authority to file the complaint against the petitioner. 6. Now Shri Punde, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner raised a three-fold contention firstly it has been contended that the prosecution under section 630 of Companies Act was bad in law as it was time barred under section 468, Criminal Procedure Code. Secondly, it has been contended that the prosecution was vitiated inasmuch as section 630 of the Act has no application to past employee. Lastly, it has been contended that the Courts below erred in taking cognizance of the offence as it was a civil dispute between landlord and tenant relating to recovery of premises let out. 7. Shri Latkar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 Corporation while repelling the contention has also raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the revision petition filed by the petitioner. Relying upon decision in case of (Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh and another)1, A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 381, it has been submitted that under section 397(3), Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner is precluded from invoking jurisdiction of this Court when he has exercised his option to approach the Sessions Judge. 8. There is undoubtedly merit in the objection raised on behalf of the respondents. The bar of section 397(3) is certainly attracted and when the Additional Sessions Judge refuses to interfere with the order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, the petitioner is precluded from invoking the revisional Jurisdiction of this Court. 9. 8. There is undoubtedly merit in the objection raised on behalf of the respondents. The bar of section 397(3) is certainly attracted and when the Additional Sessions Judge refuses to interfere with the order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, the petitioner is precluded from invoking the revisional Jurisdiction of this Court. 9. Quite apart, there is also no merit in any of the contentions which have been raised on behalf of the petitioner. There is no dispute that the petitioner has retired from service of the respondent No. 1 on January 2nd, 1980, and after a period of six years the complaint was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on November 25, 1986. It is true that under section 468(2) of Criminal Procedure Code the period of limitation for taking cognizance of the offence which was punishable with fine only is six months. But having regard to the nature of offence under section 630 of the Companies Act, it is not possible to accept that the prosecution was time barred under section 468(2) of the Code. Section 630 provides a penalty for wrongful withholding of the property- "(1) If any Officer or employee of a company- (a) wrongfully obtains possession of any property of a company; or (b) having any such property in his possession, wrongfully withholds it or knowingly applies it to purposes other than those expressed or directed in the articles and authorised by this Act; he shall, on the complaint of the company or any creditor or contributory thereof , be punishable with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees. (2) The Court trying the offence may also order such officer or employee to deliver up or refund, within a time to be fixed by the Court, any such property wrongfully obtained or wrongfully withheld or knowingly misapplied, or in default, to suffer imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years." 10. At the very threshold it is necessary to emphasise the words "wrongfully withholds" as appearing in sub-clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 630 of the Act. The allotment of the quarter in favour of the petitioner was for residence during the period of his service. The occupation of the petitioner after his retirement would be without any permission. At the very threshold it is necessary to emphasise the words "wrongfully withholds" as appearing in sub-clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 630 of the Act. The allotment of the quarter in favour of the petitioner was for residence during the period of his service. The occupation of the petitioner after his retirement would be without any permission. It appears, as rightly argued by the learned Counsel for respondent, that the company on humanitarian grounds acceded to the request of the petitioner and permitted him to stay on company's premises after his retirement. But since the petitioner failed to vacate the quarter, the company has no alternative but to initiate proceeding under section 630 of the Act which means that permission to occupy the quarter stands withdrawn and the present occupation of the petitioner becomes that of a trespasser. Sub-clause (b) of sub- section (1) of section 630 of the Act plainly makes it an offence if an officer or employee of the company who was permitted to use any property of the company during his employment wrongfully retains or occupies the same after termination of his employment. Therefore, the act of with holding or wrongfully retaining or occupying the company's premises after termination of employment of the petitioner is continuing act under which section 630 makes it a penal offence. The case may also be considered from a different angle. The expression 'continuing offence' has acquired a well recognised meaning in criminal law. If an act committed by an accused constitutes an offence and if that act continues from day to day, then from day to day a fresh offence is committed by the accused so long as the act continues. Normally and in the ordinary course an offence is committed only once but there may be offences as falling in the latter category which are described as continuing offences. As stated earlier, the present occupation of the petitioner of the quarter is in the capacity as a trespasser no sooner than he has retired from service or permission to retain the quarter after retirement is withdrawn. Section 472, Criminal procedure Code is, therefore, attracted which inter alia provides that in case of a continuing offence a fresh period of limitation shall begin to run at every moment of the time during which the offence continues. 11. Section 472, Criminal procedure Code is, therefore, attracted which inter alia provides that in case of a continuing offence a fresh period of limitation shall begin to run at every moment of the time during which the offence continues. 11. Learned Counsel for respondent has invited my attention to decision in (Beguram v. Jaipur Udhyog Ltd.)2, 1988 Cri.L.J. 1452 wherein similar view is taken. Therefore, there is hardly any substance in the contention that the prosecution was time barred. 12. Now, coming to the other contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner it can be said that there is also no merit in the contention that section 630 applies to existing officers or employees and it does not apply to Past Officers or employees if such officers or employee either (a) wrongfully obtains possession of any property of the company; or (b) having obtained possession thereof during the course of employment, withholds the same after termination of his employment. In the case of (Baldev Krishna v. Shipping Corpn. of India Ltd.)3, A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 2245 the Supreme Court, while interpreting provision of section 530 of the Act has held that the term "officer or employee" of the company applies not only to the Existing Officer or employee but also past officer or employee or if such officer or employee either wrongfully obtains possession of any property of company or having obtained possession during course of employment, withholds same after termination of his employment. 13. There is not an iota of evidence which the petitioner could adduce to show that at any point of time while he was in service he was accepted as a tenant by the respondent Usmanshahi Mill. On the contrary, the respondent has been able to show that under family form Ex. 13 the petitioner has agreed to vacate the quarter on termination of his services or his retirement as the case may be. 14. Shri Punde, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, requests a year's time to vacate as the petitioner is a poor family man and has no alternative accommodation at Nanded. In view of dire need of the petitioner, some time can be granted. The petitioner shall deliver vacant possession of the premises within a period of six months. 15. In the circumstances, there is hardly any merit in the revision petition. The revision petition is rejected. The Rule is discharged. Petition dismissed. In view of dire need of the petitioner, some time can be granted. The petitioner shall deliver vacant possession of the premises within a period of six months. 15. In the circumstances, there is hardly any merit in the revision petition. The revision petition is rejected. The Rule is discharged. Petition dismissed. -----