1. An important and interesting question of law has been raised in this revision as to whether non-filing of annual return, as envisaged under Sections 159/220 of the Companies Act, 1956, is a continuing offence. 2. Relevant facts for disposal of this revision are that Registrar of Companies under the Companies Act, 1956 ( hereinafter called the Act ), filed a complaint against the respondents by pleading that M/S Elabortate Leasing Private Limited was incorporated on 4.9.1986 under the Act, having its registered office at 38, Industrial Estate, Digiana, Jammu. The authorized capital of the Company was Rs. 3 Lacs. Respondents 2 to 6 are the Directors of the Company. It was pleaded that accused have not filed the annual return and have also not convened the Annual General Meeting, which was due on 3.3.1988 and have thus violated the provisions of Sections 159/220 of the Act. Process was issued against the respondents and on appearing, they moved a complaint for dropping the proceedings against the Company and its Directors on the ground that complaint is barred by time as the cause of action has accrued to the complainant on 2.5.1988 and the offence under which the complaint has been filed is punishable with fine only. The learned trial Magistrate dropped the proceedings, aggrieved of which the Registrar of Companies has impugned the order in this revision petition. 3. Notice was issued to the respondents and they have been duly served but no one has put in appearance on their behalf. Mr. Inder Jeet Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the offence under sections 159 and 220 of the Companies Act are continuing offences, as provided under section 538-F of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1938 AD= Section 472 of the Central Code of Criminal Procedure and, as such, Section 468 of the Code was not applicable. He further submitted that the learned Magistrate, without perusing sections 159 and 220 of the Companies Act, has erroneously dismissed the complaint. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Before considering the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, it will be appropriate to notice the provisions of sections 159 and 220 of the Companies Act. 159. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Before considering the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, it will be appropriate to notice the provisions of sections 159 and 220 of the Companies Act. 159. Annual return to be made by company having a share capital:- (1) Every Company having a share capital shall, within sixty days from the day on which each of the annual general meeting referred to in section 166 is held, prepare and file with the Registrar a return containing the particulars specified in part I of Schedule V, as they stood on that day, regarding:- (a) its registered office, (b) the register of its members, ( c) the register of its debenture holders, (d) its share and debentures, (e) its indebtedness, (f) its members and debenture holders, part and present and (g) its directors, managing directors, managers and secretaries, part and present. 220. Three copies of balance-sheet etc. to be filled with Registrar:- (1) After the balance-sheet and the profit and loss account have been laid before a company at an annual general meeting as aforesaid, there shall be filed with the Registrar within thirty days from the date on which the balance-sheeet and the profit and loss account were so laid or where the annual general meeting of a company for any year has not been held, there4 shall be filed with the Registrar within thirty days from the latest day on or before which that meeting should have been held in accordance with the provisions of this Act. (a)¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦ (b)¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦.. Provided further that:- (i)¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦..... (ii)¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦ (iii) ¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦ (2)¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦ (3) If default is made in complying with the requirements of sub-sections (1) and (2), the company and every officer of the company who is in default, shall be liable to the like punishment as is provided, by section 162 for a default in complying with the provisions of section 159, 160 or 161.� 5. Punishment for default has been provided under Section 162 of the Act, which reads as under:- 162. Punishment for default has been provided under Section 162 of the Act, which reads as under:- 162. Penalty and interpretation:- (1) If a company fails to comply with any of the provisions contained in section 159, 160 or 161, the company, and every officer of the company who is in default, shall be punishable with fine which may extend to fifty rupees for every day during which the default continues.� 6. Perusal of sub-section (1) of Section 162 of the Act shows that if a company fails to comply with any provisions contained in sections 159, 160, 161 or 220 of the Act, the company and its officers, who makes the default, shall be liable for punishment to fine which may extent to Rs. 50/- per day, during which the default continues, therefore, the provisions of section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not attracted. In Bhagirath Kanoria and ors vs. State of M.P, AIR 1984 SC, 1688, the Apex Court has observed as under:- The question whether a particular offence is a continuing offence must necessarily depend upon the language of the statute which creates that offence, the nature of the offence and, above all, the purpose which is intended to be achieved by constituting the particular act as an offence. The failure to pay employer™s contribution before the due date, considering the object and purpose of that provision, which is to ensure the welfare of workers, it cannot be said that the offence is not of a continuing nature.� In the same case, it has been further observed as under:- Non-payment of the employer™s contribution to the Provident Fund before the due date is a continuing offence and, therefore, the period of limitation prescribe4d by Section 468 cannot have any application. The offence will be governed by S. 472 according to which, a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment of the time during which the offence continues.� 7. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Luxmi Printing Works Ltd and ors Vs. Assistant Registrar of Companies, 1990 Vol. 69 Company cases, 442, has held that offence under sections 159, 160, 161 and 220 of the Companies Act, are continuing offences. Similar view has been taken by Delhi High Court in Anita Chadha Vs. A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Luxmi Printing Works Ltd and ors Vs. Assistant Registrar of Companies, 1990 Vol. 69 Company cases, 442, has held that offence under sections 159, 160, 161 and 220 of the Companies Act, are continuing offences. Similar view has been taken by Delhi High Court in Anita Chadha Vs. The Registrar of Companies, 1999 CRL.L.J, 2433, where it has been held that offences under sections 159 and 220 read with Section 162 of the Act are continuing offences within the meaning of Section 472 and Section 468 of the Code, are not attracted. 8. In view of the authoritative decisions, no contrary view is possible, therefore, the order of dropping of proceedings by the learned Magistrate, is not sustainable. 9. For the reasons mentioned above, the revision is accepted and the order impugned is set aside. The learned Magistrate is directed to hold further enquiry, in accordance with law.