H. G. RAMESH, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition is filed assailing the order passed by the 7th Addl. C. M. M. , bangalore City in CC No. 16908/2000 (PCR no. 195/2000) by order dt. 23-9-2000 and also the order passed by the Prl. City S. J. , bangalore City in Cri. R. P. 60/2001 confirming the order of the C. M. M. , by his order dt. 13-7-2001. ( 2 ) THE brief facts are that the 1st petitioners is a Public Ltd. Company, registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1955. The 2nd and 3rd petitioners are the employees of the 1st petitioner company being the General Manager and the Export officer respectively, wherein the said company is engaged in processing food products and as such it falls within the definition trader as defined under the provisions of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the act for short ). On inspection, on 7-8-1999 the officials of the said establishment noticed certain violations of the provisions of the Act and Regulations, wherein the said company was said to be processing mangoes and tomatoes into pulp and exporting tp foreign countries and the said produce is riotified as agricultural produce and the accused purchased the notified agricultural produce within the market area of the complainant without there being a licence and also without paying the 1% of the process fee on the purchases made which comes to the tune of Rs. 11,21,492/ -. Hence the private complaint for violation of the provisions of Sections 114, 117 and 122 of the said Act for violation of Secs. 8, 65 (2) and 66 of the act which are punishable under Ss. 114, 116, 117, 117-Aand 122 of the Act. A demand notice has been issued to remit the said amount. In that regard, ultimately the cheque came to be issued by the petitioners and after a justing the initial amount paid, for non-payment of the remaining amount in spite of issuance of of legal notice, the authority referred the matter to the complainant authority to take suitable legal action in that regard. The accused compounded the offence on 30-6-2000 and issued a cheque for Rs. 2,50,000/- which was dishonoured and later the complainant authority passed a resolution authorising the complainant to file a complaint to take legal action on the said complaint; cognizance has. The accused compounded the offence on 30-6-2000 and issued a cheque for Rs. 2,50,000/- which was dishonoured and later the complainant authority passed a resolution authorising the complainant to file a complaint to take legal action on the said complaint; cognizance has. been taken and issued process. The same has been assailed before the revision Court. The revision Court confirmed the said offence. Hence this petition has been filed on; several grounds. ( 3 ) THE main ground of attack is that the complaint is filed beyond a period of one year and the prescribed punishment is only fine or else upto simple imprisonment for six months also assailed regarding taking cognizance against the petitioners 2 and 3 stating that they are only employees and cognizance should have been taken against the directors and one more aspect is regarding the fact that the Magistrate has not indicated as to what is the offence for which conizance is taken and also on the ground that the Secretary has filed the complaint without there being proper authorisation which is not maintainable. ( 4 ) THE point that arises for consideration is whether the taking cognizance and issuance of process by the Addl. CMM Bangalore and confirmation of the said order by Prl. City Sessions Judge, Bangalore, are liable to be set aside. ( 5 ) IT is the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners while taking me through the various provisions of the Act alleged to have been committed udner Ss. 114, 116, 117and 117-Aand 120 of the Act submitted that for the violation of the said provisions, the punishment prescribed is fine or simple imprisonment for six months and the prosecution ought to have been launched within one year of the date of commission of the offence, as per Ss. 468 (a) (2) (b) of the Cr. P. C. He also argued on several other aspects regarding the fact that the petitioner has not made out any ground to attract the provisions of the Act itself. Apart from this submission regarding the dishonour of the cheque they ought to have proceeded under the N. I. Act and not to have invoked the provisions of the Act to prosecute the petitioners for having compound the offence. Cases referred : 1. 1995 SCC (Cri) 503 : (1995 AIR SCW 2016) 2. Apart from this submission regarding the dishonour of the cheque they ought to have proceeded under the N. I. Act and not to have invoked the provisions of the Act to prosecute the petitioners for having compound the offence. Cases referred : 1. 1995 SCC (Cri) 503 : (1995 AIR SCW 2016) 2. 1983 Cri LJ 159 : ( AIR 1983 SC 67 } 3. 1997 Cri LJ 353 (Kant); 4. (2001) 3 Kant LJ 518 : (2001 AIR Kant hcr 658 : 2001 Cri LJ 1446) ( 6 ) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of the complaint filed by the Asst. Secretary of the authority reported in 1995 SC (Cri) 503 : (1995 AIR SCW 2016), Secretary Agricultural produce Marketing Committee, O. K. District v. Varadaraya Shenoy. To clarify this position when the records were secured, it was found that the market committee under the act shown to have passed a resolution to take legal action against the petrs. Therefore, the said contention of the counsel for the petitioners does not stand to reason. ( 7 ) FURTHER, the contention of the counsel for the petitioners is in respect of making the petitioners 2 and 3 as parties on the ground that the petitioner No. 1 is the company registered under the Companies Act and stating that the cbmpany is manned by the Board of Directors and the petitioners 2 and 3 are only employees and as such the magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance against the petitioners 2 and 3. In this regard, the decision relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners is (1983 Cri LJ 159 : ( AIR 1983 SC 67 ), Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi, wherein it is held that complaint against company, its Directors and Manager and when there is no allegation made against the Manager and Directors that they are responsible for conduct of business of the disputed simple held proceedings could be quashed against Directors but not against Manager. Of course, in the instant case as noted the petitiones 2 and 3 are almost acting as General Manager and Export Officer who are more concerned with the purchase of the products and acting on behalf of the company. Nonetheless a specific averment is made in respect of the duties discharged and their designations. Of course, in the instant case as noted the petitiones 2 and 3 are almost acting as General Manager and Export Officer who are more concerned with the purchase of the products and acting on behalf of the company. Nonetheless a specific averment is made in respect of the duties discharged and their designations. Under the circumstances, there is no reason to say that the cognizance taken against them is not in according with law. ( 8 ) OF course, in the citation it is stated as to quashing of the proceedings against the Directors and not against the manager. ( 9 ) THE next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the complaint is clearly barred by S. 468, Cr. P. C. as it is filed beyond the period of limitation as the punishment prescribed is only fine or simple imprisonment upto six months. ( 10 ) HOWEVER, the position is well settled in the citation reported in 1997 Cri LJ 3537, n. K. Singh v. M/s. Engineering General workers Union, Bangalore, wherein it is held that in similar circumstances, when there is non-compliance of the settlement, it amounts to a continuing offence and does not take the shelter of S. 468, Cr. P. C. The complaint filed against such non settlement cannot be said to be barred by limitation. ( 11 ) ADMITTEDLY, in the instant case, there is liability on the part of the petitioners so as to make payment for violation of certain provisions of the Act. Ultimately, it is noticed that the petitioner entered into compromise and the offence has been compounded and after the compounding of the offence, cheque is shown to have been issued and ultimately the cheque came to be dishonoured. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the the petitioner that the complaint ought to have been filed under S. 138 of the N. I. Act, etc. ( 12 ) AS far as the compounding of the offence is concerned, when the petitioners have agreed upon to make payment and" having failed as perthe promise and from that point the limitation starts runing and not exactly from the original date of offence committed for this purpose, the limitation commences once again from the date of breach of promise, i. e. on dishonour of cheque and for non-payment as undertaken since it is continuing offence. ( 13 ) IT is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that omission to specify offence renders the proceedings void. ( 14 ) HOWEVER, it is to be noted in this regard in the complaint filed, it is specifically mentioned about the provisions of the said act making specific allegation. As such, the question of mentioning the same by the magistrate once again will not arise in the case on hand. ( 15 ) IT is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Secretary who has filed the complaint is not authorised to act upon as per the provisions of the Act, etc. In this regard, records have been called for from the Court below and on perusal, it is seen that the Market Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner has passed a resolution authorising the Secretary to proceed in accordance with law. In view of the same, it cannot be said that the complainant has no authorisation to proceed against the petitioners. However, there is shown to be prima facie case to proceed against the petitioners based on the complaint filed by the complainant. In view of the overall discussion, I feel nothing warrants to quash the proceedings. Accordingly, the petitioner is disposed of. Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .