JUDGMENT 1. - This special leave to appeal is directed against the order of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur dated 8th March, 1989, wherein he has allowed the claim of respondent and discharged the petitioner from the offences Under sections 31(1), 32 (7) and 33(2) of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982. 2. A complaint was filed by the Enforcement Inspector before the learned Magistrate on behalf of Jaipur Development Authority alleging therein that on 7.9.1982, he inspected Plot No. 27, Haridas Nagar, Near Barkat Colony and it was found that the unauthorised construction of two rooms in an area of 30'x 37' was going on and also raising construction of two kitchen, verandah, staircase, W.C., bathroom etc. on the said plot. A notice was given to the accused for demolishing the constructions made by him and stopping the further unauthorised constructions but the accused respondent did not comply with the notice and, therefore, a complaint was filed against the accused Under sections 31(1), 32(7) and 33(2) of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982. Inter alia, the respondent denies the allegations and prayed for trial. During trial, four prosecution witnesses were examined and accused also produced two witnesses in defence. The learned ACJM instead of deciding the case on merits, he has taken the view that as complaint has been filed beyond limitation, therefore, no cognizance can be taken in the complaint after expiry of limitation. 3. Being dissatisfied with the order of learned ACJM No. 1, the petitioner has filed this leave to appeal. Notices were issued to the respondent why the appeal be not allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant Mrs. Jain submitted that the offence Under section 31 & 32 is a continuing offence. Therefore, there is no question of limitation till the offence is continued. She placed reliance on State Vs. Umashankar Laxminarayan Jaiswall ( AIR 1962 MP 311 ) ; Oriental lank of Commerce and another Vs. Delhi Development Authority & others (1982 Cr. L.J. 2230) ; and, Jaipur Development Authority Vs. Prahlad Kumar (1987 RLW page 315 = 1987 (2) RLR 776) . 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that it is not a continuing offence and he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Jaipur Development Authority Vs. Prahlad Kumar (supra). L.J. 2230) ; and, Jaipur Development Authority Vs. Prahlad Kumar (1987 RLW page 315 = 1987 (2) RLR 776) . 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that it is not a continuing offence and he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Jaipur Development Authority Vs. Prahlad Kumar (supra). Thus, the limited controversy remained for my consideration is whether the offences Under sections 31, 32 & 33 are continuing offence. 6. The provisions of Section provides that any person, whether at his own instance or at the instance of any other person commences, undertakes or carries out development or institutes, or changes the use of any land without permission required under this Act shall, on conviction, be punished with fine to the extent of five thousand rupees. It is further provided in the section that if unauthorised use of the land is continued, that will be the case of continuing offence with a further fine which may extend to one hundred rupees for every day during which the offence is continued. Sub. sec. (5) of Section also specifically deal with the limitation and it provides that unauthorised construction is a continuing offence. Detection of construction is not relevant aspect for computing the period of limitation when the information about the commission of offence is given or received, it amounts to the discovery of the offence. 7. Provisions of Section of the Act provides for removal of an unauthorised development. For unauthorised construction, a notice can be served on the person concerned to restore the land to its condition existing before the said development within such period being not exceeding one month. In case the notice is not complied with, the Authority may prosecuting and he can be punished under sub. sec. (7) of Section 32. Sub. sec. (7) also provides that unauthorised person shall be punished with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees and in case of continuing offence with a fine which may extend to one hundred rupees for every day. That means if he does not remove the construction, he will have to pay the penalty of rupees one hundred per day till the unauthorised construction remains. 8. Provisions of Section empowers the authority to stop unauthorised development. That means if he does not remove the construction, he will have to pay the penalty of rupees one hundred per day till the unauthorised construction remains. 8. Provisions of Section empowers the authority to stop unauthorised development. When it came to the notice that some unauthorised construction is going on, the Authority may serve on the owner and the person carrying out the development, a notice requiring the development of land to be discontinued from the time to the service of notice. Even if after notice, he continues to carry out the development, then he will be convicted and will be punished with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees and when the non compliance is a continuing one, he will be punished further with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees for every day after the date of the service of the notice during which the non-compliance is continued. 9. The expression 'continuing' speaks of 'a continuing breach of contract' or 'continuing wrong'. It would mean that the 'breach' or 'wrong' is not the result of a single positive act, but it would only mean that if a continuing offence gives rise to a fresh offence de die in diem, such fresh offence shall give rise to fresh starting point for limitation. The conception underlying the word 'continuing' is the same whether it is considered in relation to breach of contracts or wrongs independent of contracts or offences, they give rise to a fresh cause of action so long the wrongful state of affairs subsist. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on the decision of this court in the case of Jaipur Development Authority Vs. Prahlad Kumar . (supra), and submitted that his case is covered by the decision of Prahlad Kumar's case (supra). 11. In Prahlad Kumar's case (supra), the issue was whether the limitation expired for filing the complaint for the offence Under sections 32 and 33 of the JDA Act. The leave to appeal was dismissed on the ground that no notice was served for the offence Under section 32 and for the offence Under section 33, the limitation starts from the date of service of notice and if construction is not continued, the limitation expired after six months from the date of service of the notice. The leave to appeal was dismissed on the ground that no notice was served for the offence Under section 32 and for the offence Under section 33, the limitation starts from the date of service of notice and if construction is not continued, the limitation expired after six months from the date of service of the notice. In case the construction is stopped after service of notice, no offence is made out Under section 33(2) of the Act or six months will be counted from the date till the construction is continued. The JDAI has failed to prove that the construction was continued even after service ol notice. Therefore, the application was rejected. 12. In the case in hand, the accused respondent has been tried for the offence under sub. sec. (1) of Section and sub sec. (7) of Section 32 and also sub sec. (2) of Section . In all these sub sections, there is a mention of continuing offence i.e. so long unauthorised construction remains, the offence will continue, and in case of unauthorised construction not removed, the offence will continue as per sub. set. (7) of Section 32. Similarly, sub. sec. (2) of section also provides for continuing offence. Not only that sub. sec. (5) of Section specifically provides for the limitation how the period of limitation will be counted and relevant part of sub. sec. (5) of Section reads as under : "unauthorised construction is a continuing offence, detection of construction is not relevant aspect for computing the period of limitation, When the information about commission of an offence is given or received, it amounts to be discovery of the offence. limitation regarding unauthorised encroachment continues to run from the very date of the detection of encroachment. Every moment of existence of unauthorised construction constitutes a fresh offence and hence, prosecution can be launched within the limitation from the date of detection of an unauthorised construction." 13. Thus, the offences under section 31(1), 32(7) and 33(2) they are of continuing offences so long the state of affairs subsist, but in case of Section , they only rider is that movement (moment) the construction work stops, then the limitation period will start from that day. 14. Thus, the offences under section 31(1), 32(7) and 33(2) they are of continuing offences so long the state of affairs subsist, but in case of Section , they only rider is that movement (moment) the construction work stops, then the limitation period will start from that day. 14. Considering the facts stated above, when the respondent has committed the offence punishable Under sections 31(1), 32(7) and 33(2) by construction of two rooms and that construction remains till today on the Plot No. 27, Haridas Nagar, the offence of the respondent is 'continuing offence' till the unauthorised construction remained on the plot. Similarly, when the notice for removal of unauthorised construction has been served on the respondent and he failed to comply with the notice, so served, and till he remove the unauthorised construction, the offence Under section 32 remain continue. Hence, while the offence Under sections 31 and 32 are continuing offences so long, the unauthorised construction remain on plot, the limitation will not expire within six months from the date of notice. 15. In view of the facts and law discussed above, the complaint in this case has been filed in time. The impugned order of ACJM No. 1 is set-aside and I restore the matter back to the file of ACJM No. 1 with a direction to decide the case on merits. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed at admission stage.Appeal allowed. *******