ORDER The petitioner is the proprietor of Messrs Basdev Bansal and Bros., Lower Bazar, Solan. He was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 32 of the H. P. Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1991, hereinafter referred to as the Act. He was convicted for such offence by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, on 7-9-1987 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-. Since the offence was found to be a continuing one, the learned Magistrate allowed a period of 30 days to the petitioner to obtain the requisite licence under the Act and on his failure to do so, he was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 13/- per day from the date of conviction and sentence till the date of obtaining of the requisite licence. 2. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner was affirmed in appeal by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan, on 16-7-1988. 3. The petitioner thereafter assailed the judgments of the two Courts below by way of a writ petition, being C.W.P. No. 530 of 1989. Such writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 24-7-1997. 4. Since the petitioner failed to deposit the amount of fine of Rs. 13/- per day as imposed upon him, the respondent on 1-8-1989 approached the learned Magistrate for the enforcement of the order dated 7-9-1987. 5. As per the details of calculation of fine, annexed to the application the petitioner was shown as a defaulter for 3831 days from 7-9-1987 till 3-3-1998. The total amount of fine recoverable from the petitioner at the abovesaid rate of Rs. 13/- per day was claimed at Rs. 49,803/-. 6. In response to the notice issued to him by the learned Magistrate and after the dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner made a representation before the learned Magistrate on 2-1-1998. Following submissions were made :- (a) recovery of the amount for the period beyond three years was time-barred; (b) the petitioner had stopped dealing in foodgrains in 1994 and had finally surrendered his foodgrain licence in December, 1995; and (c) the respondent is estopped from recovering the amount since Shri Attar Singh, the then Commissioner, Agricultural Products to the Government of Himachal Pradesh had recommended for initiating proper steps to write off all the recoveries pending against traders engaged in the business of foodgrains. 7. 7. The learned Magistrate negatived all the submissions made by the petitioner on 8-1-1998 and vide order dated 4-3-1998 held that a sum of Rs. 49,803/- as fine was due from the petitioner for the period 7-9-1987 till 3-3-1998 calculated at the rate of Rs. 13/- per day. The learned Magistrate accordingly directed for the issuance of the warrants of recovery of the said amount. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has come up before this Court by way of the present petition. The only point urged during the course of hearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the impugned order is bad inasmuch as while ordering the recovery of the amount of Rs. 49,803/-, the learned Magistrate has failed to record a finding that the contravention of the provisions of the Act was continuing and if so uptil what date. It was contended that since the petitioner had taken the plea that he had ceased to deal in foodgrains since 1994, an enquiry ought to have been held by the learned Magistrate before determining the outstanding amount of fine at the rate of Rs. 13/- per day. 9. Section 32 of the Act, insofar as it is material for the purpose of the present case, reads :- "(1) Any person who contravenes any of the provisions of Section 4 or Section 6 or Section 26 or the rules or bye-laws made thereunder shall, on conviction, be punishable with simple imprisonment which may extend to 90 days, or with fine which shall not be less than fifty rupees but may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both, and in the case of a continuing contravention, with a fine which, in addition to such fine as aforesaid, may extend to thirty rupees for every day after the date of first conviction during which the contravention is continued." 10. A bare reading of the above provision shows that fine in the case of a continuing offence imposed for every day after the date of first conviction is to be confined to the period only during which the contravention is continued. 11. Therefore, before an order for recovery of such fine can be passed, the learned Magistrate is obliged to hold an inquiry and record a finding that there has been a contravention after the date of conviction and if so for what period. 12. 11. Therefore, before an order for recovery of such fine can be passed, the learned Magistrate is obliged to hold an inquiry and record a finding that there has been a contravention after the date of conviction and if so for what period. 12. In the present case, as stated above, as per the petitioner he had stopped dealing in foodgrains in 1994. The learned Magistrate, therefore, before proceeding to order recovery of fine for the period beyond 1994 should have recorded a finding, after an inquiry, that petitioner was continuing to deal in foodgrains and that the contravention was continuing. 13. In the absence of an inquiry and the requisite finding, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 14. Resultantly, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Magistrate for disposal afresh in accordance with law and in the light of observations made above. 15. Be it stated that in pursuance of the orders of this Court, a sum of Rs. 34,739/-, representing the amount of fine for the period ending 31-12-1994 stands deposited by the petitioner with the learned trial Court. Such deposit shall be subject to the determination by the learned Magistrate of the amount of fine due from the petitioner. 16. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, on 21-9-1998. The records be returned forthwith so as to reach all before the date fixed. Petition allowed