Judgment : 1. This is a petition to quash the proceeding in T.C.No.335 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vaniambadi, Vellore District. The case against the petitioner is that she failed to pay the property tax for which the demand notice was served on her. The distraint of property was found impracticable 2. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceeding has to be quashed for the following reasons;- (1) that the complaint is barred by limitation. (2) without following the Rule 32 of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, i. e., without taking steps to distraint of defaulters properties for filing complaint it not maintainable. (3) The learned counsel for the respondent was heard and he submits that the period of limitation mentioned in Section 347 of the Act is not applicable to this case. Section 347 reads as follows:- “347. Persons empowered to prosecute: (Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, no Court shall take cognizance of any offence) against the provisions of this Act, or of any rule, or by-law made under it unless complaint is made by the police, or the (executive authority) or by a person expressly authorised in this behalf by the council or the (executive authority) within three months of the commission of the offence. But nothing herein shall affect the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (1898) in regard to the power of certain magistrates to take cognizance of offence upon information received or upon their own knowledge or suspicion: Provided that failure to take out, a licence, obtain permission or secure registration under this Act shall, for the purpose of this section, be deemed continuing offence until the expiration of the period, if any, for which the licence, permission or registration is required and if no period is specified, complaint may be made at any time within twelve months from the commencement of the offence.” 4. Here, the non payment of tax is a continuing offence and as such the period of limitation of the three months is not applicable to this case. The petitioner has not paid the dues till date except the interim deposit of Rs.20.000/-(Rupees twenty thousand) only as the order of this Court while admitting the quash petition. 5. Here, the non payment of tax is a continuing offence and as such the period of limitation of the three months is not applicable to this case. The petitioner has not paid the dues till date except the interim deposit of Rs.20.000/-(Rupees twenty thousand) only as the order of this Court while admitting the quash petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to notice of this Court Section 345 of the Act, which reads as follows:- “345. Limitation for recovery of dues:- “No distraint shall be made, no suit shall be instituted and no prosecution shall be commenced in respect of any sum due to the municipal council under this Act after the expiration of a period of three years from the date on which distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted, or prosecution might first have been commenced, as the case may be, in respect of such sum.” 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also points out Rule 30(2) of the Act. “If for any reason the distraint, or a sufficient distraint of the defaulters property is impracticable the (executive authority) may prosecute the defaulter before a magistrate.” It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the distraint of the defaulters property is a condition precedent for launching the prosecution. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the decision reported in P. R. V. R. Veerappa Chettiar v. State of Madras (1969) L.W.(Crl) 58 and also Kalimuthu v. Municipal Health Officer, Devakottai (1969)L.W. (Crl) 111. While hearing the arguments, the counsel for the petition has fairly brought to my notice an unreported order passed by this Court in Crl. O.P. No. 6303 to 6312 of 1998 dated 29.3.2000. In the above said judgment, the decisions reported in P. R. V. R. Veerappa Chettiar v. State of Madras (supra) are considered and it is absorbed that as it was mentioned in the complaint that the distraint of property was found impracticable, it was possible to decide with regard to the limitation as per Section 345 of the Act. 8. This Court finds that the same position exists in this case also and in complaint of this case also it is mentioned that demand notices were served and distraint of property was found impracticable. 8. This Court finds that the same position exists in this case also and in complaint of this case also it is mentioned that demand notices were served and distraint of property was found impracticable. This Court feels that the prosecution must be given an opportunity to explain as how the complaint is within time. The fact that the distraint of property was found impracticable is not supported by any material at this stage. It is for the trial court to go into the question whether any steps were taken actually for distraint of property or not. With the above observation, the quash petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous petition is also closed.