Judgment : This criminal revision case is directed against an order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur at Kumbakonam, dismissing an application filed under Sec.473, Criminal Procedure Code for condoning delay in filing a criminal complaint under Sec. 25 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1959. The complaint was filed by the Superintendent, Regulated Market, Kumbakonam, for an alleged offence under Sec.18 of the Act committed by the respondent before the Magistrate (respondent here also) for non-payment of fee of Rs.2,721.10 levied by the Market Committe on notified agricultural produce sold in the notified area for the period from 1. 1985 to 30.11.1986. Along with the complaint, a petition was filed under Sec.473, Crl.P.C., praying that a delay of two months may be condoned in filing the complaint. This petition was contested. The learned Magistrate held that no sufficient cause was shown for condoning the delay and dismissed the same. It is against this order, the criminal revision case has been filed by the complainant. 2. After hearing both sides, it appears to me that wrongly under misconception of law the petition for condonation of delay has been filed by the complainant and it was unnecessary and redundant. A reading of Sec.18 of the said Act would show that an offence committed under that section for the non-payment of the fee levied so long as it was not paid is continuing offence and there is no fixed date of the commission of the offence. This view of mine is supported by a decision in N. Prabhakaran v. Supervisor, Regulated Market, South Arcot Market Committee, Chinnasalem, 1986 Crl.L.J. 485, in which the facts are quite similar to the instant case. There, the learned Judge relied on a principle laid down in a Division Bench decision in Premier Studs and Chaplets Company, In re., 1989 M.L.J. (Crl.) 226, and has clearly said that the non-payment of fee levied by the Market Committee as required under Sec. 18 of the Act is a continuing offence so long as the amount is not paid. 3. That being the case under Sec. 472, Crl.P.C., no question of limitation arises. It follows, therefore, the petition filed for excusing the delay is quite unnecessary and redundant. Therefore, the petition has been rightly dismissed though for different reasons, that is according to the Magistrate no sufficient reason has been given for the delay. 3. That being the case under Sec. 472, Crl.P.C., no question of limitation arises. It follows, therefore, the petition filed for excusing the delay is quite unnecessary and redundant. Therefore, the petition has been rightly dismissed though for different reasons, that is according to the Magistrate no sufficient reason has been given for the delay. In this situation the dismissal of the petition is correct and therefore the criminal revision case has to be dismissed. The complaint has to be treated as one which is not barred by limitation. With these observations, the criminal revision case is dismissed.