JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - Casusiness of Municipal authorities in prosecuting the offenders has given rise to this revision u/s 397, Cr. P. C. 2. Opp. parties have a house in Cuttack Town which is within the area constituting municipality under the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 (heien- after referred to as 'the Act'). On 17-11-1982, a complaint was filed by Pitambar Parida, Amin of the Municipality being authorised by the Executive Officer against the opp. parties alleging that on 17-2-1982 it was first detected that the persons complained against had commenced the construction/reconstruction of two pucca latrines septic tank and soak pit adjacent to the well. This complaint petition is in a printed proforma where various columns have been filled up by typing and many of the columns remained without filling up the vacant portion or even scoring them out. There is no. explanation why there was delay of more than nine months after detection to file the complaint. Be that as it may, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognisance of the offence u/s 385-A and directed issue of process fixing 25-1-1983 for appearance of accused. On 4-4-1983 to which day case was posted for appearance of accused, process came back after service by affixure on refusal. Directing issue of bailable warrant of arrest, appearance was fixed to 6-6-1983 and complainant was directed to pay the process fee by 20-4-1983. Before that date accused persons appeared on 11-4-1983, a date to which the case was not fixed. They filed a petition to record their confession on the basis of which learned Chief Judicial Magistrate explained them the particulars of offence and recorded their statement u/s 313, Cr. P. C. where they admitted guilt Question u/s 313, Cr. P. C. was that two pucua septic latrines, tank and soak pit which was detected since 12-2-1982 having been constructed without obtaining any permission from Cuttack Municipality. This was accepted by accused persons. On the very day, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate imposed fine of Rs. 20/- each which was paid by the accused persons and case was closed. 3. On 20-4-1983 which was the day fixed for complainant to file process fee, he could have know about the order. That day complainaent does not seem to have taken any steps. On the very day, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate imposed fine of Rs. 20/- each which was paid by the accused persons and case was closed. 3. On 20-4-1983 which was the day fixed for complainant to file process fee, he could have know about the order. That day complainaent does not seem to have taken any steps. On 6-6-1983 which was the date fixed for appearance of accused persons on bailable warrant of arrest being executed, it seems complainant did not take any steps to know the fate of the prosecution. Long thereafter, on 7-10-1983 a petition was filed in the earlier complaint case that in view of provision u/s 385-A of the Act and admission of the accused persons, they may be summoned and sentenced to pay daily fine for the period during which the offence is continued after the first day. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, however, passed order by stating that in the petition prayer has been made to take cognisance stating that accused persons are still continuing to commit offence after the date of their conviction. After hearing complainant, on 7-11-1983, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognisance u/s 385-A of the Act. On 22-3-1985 service returns of summons were received after service by affixure. Earlier also there was affixure service on 30-11-1984 and 21-6-1984. Hence, bailable warrant of arrest was directed to be issued. After appeararrce, accused persons on 12-8-1985, they filed petitioner on 14-8-1985 to consider the question of maintainability of the prosecution. After objection was filed, learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate by the impugned order dated 28-9-1985 held that prosecution is not maintainable since the complaint has been instituted 15 months after from the date of detection of the offence and the accused persons having been tried and convicted of the offence. complaint having been dismissed on these grounds this revision has been filed. 4. Mr. B. Rath, learned counsel for complainant petitioner submitted that both the grounds for dismissal of the complaint are valnerable. According to Mr. Rath offence u/s 385-A is a continuing offence and as such, limitation as provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for specific offences from the date of occurrence is not applicable Mr. Rath submitted that even if on conviction offence till date of conviction may not be maintainable, yet continuance of offence thereafter would not attract the bar of previous conviction. 5. Mr. Rath submitted that even if on conviction offence till date of conviction may not be maintainable, yet continuance of offence thereafter would not attract the bar of previous conviction. 5. Mr. B.H. Mohanty, learned counsel for the accused persons while supporting the grounds on which complaint has been dismissed submitted that Municipal authorities having accepted tax for the latrines for construction of which complaint has been filed, no offence has been committed. Since the confession in the previous case was to avoid harassment, undue importance should not be given to such confession as in the petition for confessing guilt in the previous case the circumstances under which accused intend to confer have been clearly described. 6. Section 38 -A of the Act provides for punishment of offence committed in various circumstances indicated therein. It reads as follows : "385-A. Penalty for unlawful building if the construction or reconstruction of any building or wall (a) is commenced without the permission of the Executive Officer; or (b) is carried on or completed otherwise than in accordance with the particulars on which such permission was based; or (c) is carried on or completed in contravention of any lawful order or in breach of any provision contained in this Act or in any rule or bye-law made hereunder or of any direction or requisition lawfully given or made ; or if any alterations or additions required by notice issued u/s 271 or Section 273 are not duly made; or if any person to whom a direction is given by the Executive officer to alter or demolish a building or wall u/s 273-A fails to obey such direction : the ower of the building or wall of the said person, as the case may be, shall be liable on conviction to a fine which may extend in the case of a building to five hundred rupees and in the case of a wall or hut to fifty rupees and to a further fine which may extend in the case of a building to one hundred rupees and in the case of a wall or but to ten rupees, for each day during which the offence in proved to have continued after the first day)" 7. In this case, complainant discloses that no fine has been imposed for each day during which the offence was proved to be continued after the first day as provided u/s 385-A. From the question put in the earlier case, it is clear that accused persons have been convicted for completion of construction without permission. They cannot be prosecuted again for completion of the building. In respect of all other offences as envisaged u/s 385-A of the Act, Section 300 Cr. P. C. cannot stand as bar as accused persons have neither been convicted nor acquitted in respect of those offences. Trial Court has erred in not taking into consideration the assertion in the previous complaint, questions put to them u/s 313, Cr. P. C. and their answers in making a confession. In respect of offences for which there is no question put u/s 313, Cr. P. C and no confession has been recorded, prosecution shall be deemed to be continuing. Closing the complaint case No. 3(a) C. C. No. 1029 of 1982 is not correct and cannot be sustained. In case accused persons are so advised, they may make an application for withdrawing their confession since such recording is not in accordance with law. On such application being made, accused persons shall be tried for all offences alleged in the complaint and no note shall be taken of the confession. 8. As regards complaint case No. 3(a) C. C. 1499 of 1983, complaint is for continuance of offence. Since for continuance of offence, accused can be punished periodically, later complaint can be entertained and cognisance taken for the period which would be within limitation as provided in Section 472 Cr.P.C. Order as regards non-maintainability of the complaint on ground of being barred by limitation is also not sustainable. 9. In the result, criminal revision is allowed. Both complaint case No. 3 (a) C. C. No. 1029 of 1982 and complaint case No. 3(a) C C. No. 1499 of 1983 are directed to be brought to file. Learned Magistrate as directed to proceed in accordance with law from the stage at which they are left as per discussions in this order. Both accused and complainant are directed to appear in the Court of Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Cuttack on 17-6-1991 (Monday) on which day, date shall be fixed for proceeding with the complaint case. Final Result : Allowed