JUDGMENT 1. The Petitioners are the accused nos.1 and 2 respectively in Criminal Case No.8/PW/2010 pending before the Metropolitan Magistrate, 42nd Court, at Dadar, Mumbai. The allegation against them, as has been leveled in the said case, is that they have committed an offence punishable under Section 53(7) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act (M.R.T.P. Act), 1966. The petitioners raised a contention that the cognizance of the offence allegedly committed by them could not have been taken as the case had been instituted after the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code), and by an application dated 12.7.2011, styled as 'application for rescinding cognizance of the alleged offences', prayed that the case be closed or dismissed by rescinding or cancelling the cognizance that had been taken by the trial court. The learned Magistrate after hearing the Assistant Public Prosecutor rejected the said application by an order dated 1.11.2011. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the said order dated 1.11.2011, passed by the learned Magistrate, approached the court of Sessions invoking its revisional jurisdiction. The revision application also came to be dismissed by an order dated 27.1.2012. The petitioners have now approached this court by invoking its constitutional and inherent jurisdiction. It was decided, by consent, that the petition would be heard finally at the admission stage itself. 2. I have heard Mr. W.S. Rane, the learned counsel for the petitioners. I have heard Mr. Y.S. Shinde, the learned APP for the State. The only short point that is involved is whether the prosecution launched against the petitioners by the aforesaid criminal case is within the period of limitation prescribed by the Code. 3. 2. I have heard Mr. W.S. Rane, the learned counsel for the petitioners. I have heard Mr. Y.S. Shinde, the learned APP for the State. The only short point that is involved is whether the prosecution launched against the petitioners by the aforesaid criminal case is within the period of limitation prescribed by the Code. 3. Section 53 of the M.R.T.P. Act reads as under: Section 53 - Power to require removal of unauthorized development - (1) Where any development of land has been carried out as indicated in sub-section (1) of section 52, the Planning Authority may, subject to the provisions of this section, serve on the owner a notice requiring him, within such period, being not less than one month, as may be specified, therein after the service of the notice, to take such steps as may be specified in the notice, (a) in cases specified in clause (a) or (c) of subsection (1) of section 52, to restore the land to its condition existing before the said development took place, (b) in cases specified in clause (b) or (d) of subsection (1) of section 52, to secure compliance with the conditions or with the permission as modified: Provided that, where the notice requires the discontinuance of any use of land, the Planning Authority shall serve a notice on the occupier also. (2) In particular, such notice may, for purpose of sub-section (1), require-- (a) the demolition or alteration of any building or works; (b) the carrying out on land of any building or other operations; or (c) the discontinuance of any use of land. (3) Any person aggrieved by such notice may, within the period specified in the notice and in the manner prescribed, apply for permission under section 44 for retention on the land of any building or works or for the continuance of any use of the land, to which the notice relates, and pending the final determination or withdrawal of the application, the mere notice itself shall not affect the retention of buildings or works or the continuance of such use. (4) The foregoing provisions of this Chapter shall, so far as may be applicable, apply to an application made under sub-section (2). (4) The foregoing provisions of this Chapter shall, so far as may be applicable, apply to an application made under sub-section (2). (5) If the permission applied for is granted, the notice shall stand withdrawn; but if the permission applied for is not granted, the notice shall stand; or if such permission is granted for the retention only of some buildings, or works, or for the continuance of use of only a part of the land, the notice shall stand withdrawn as respects such buildings or works or such part of the land, but shall stand as respects other buildings or works or other part of the land, as the case may be, and thereupon, the owner shall be required to take steps specified in the notice under sub-section (1) as respects such other buildings, works or part of the land. (6) If within the period specified in the notice or within the same period after the disposal of the application under sub-section (4), the notice or so much of it as stands is not complied with, the Planning Authority may-- (a) prosecute the owner for not complying with the notice; and where the notice requires the discontinuance of any use of land any other person also who uses the land or causes or permits the land to be used in contravention of the notice; and (b) where the notice requires the demolition or alteration of any building or works or carrying out of any building or other operations, itself cause the restoration of the land to its conditions before the development took place and secure compliance with the conditions of the permission or with the permission as modified by taking such steps as the Planning Authority may consider necessary including demolition or alteration of any building or works or carrying out of any building or other operations; and recover the amount of any expenses incurred by it in this behalf from the owner as arrears of land revenue. (7) Any person prosecuted under clause (a) of sub-section (6) shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to three years and with fine which shall not be less than two thousand rupees but which may extend to five thousand rupees, and in the case of a continuing offence with a further daily fine which may extend to two hundred rupees for every day during which such offence continues after conviction for the first commission of the offence. Since sub-section (7) of Section 53 provides for punishment of imprisonment which may extend to three years for the offence in question, the period of limitation for taking cognizance of the said offence would be three years, in accordance with Clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 468 of the Code. 4. We may now examine the relevant dates and the contentions raised by the petitioners. It is alleged that the petitioners had carried out unauthorized construction work, i.e.:- construction work beyond the permission that had been granted to them by the Competent Authority. Since it was noticed that such construction work was illegally going on, on 23.1.2006, a notice to stop the work was given to the petitioners, but the petitioners did not stop the work. Therefore, the statutory notice dated 6.5.2006 under Section 53(1) of the M.R.T.P. Act was issued to the petitioners. By the said notice, the petitioners were called upon to demolish the unauthorized work described in the said notice and were cautioned that on their failure to comply with the requisition in the said notice within one month, they would be liable for prosecution under the M.R.T.P. Act. The petitioners, it is alleged, did not comply with the requisition in the said notice. A First Information Report (FIR) being C.R.No.1685 of 2009 was lodged at Ghatkopar Police Station on 11.9.2009, by one Sanjay Nirmal, Assistant Engineer, working with the Slum Rehabilitation Authority. The FIR specifically mentioned that the petitioners had committed an offence punishable under Section 53(7) of the M.R.T.P. Act. A charge-sheet came to be filed only on 20.3.2010. 5. These dates of the relevant happenings are not in dispute. 6. The FIR specifically mentioned that the petitioners had committed an offence punishable under Section 53(7) of the M.R.T.P. Act. A charge-sheet came to be filed only on 20.3.2010. 5. These dates of the relevant happenings are not in dispute. 6. Now, the specific contention of the petitioners is that the period of limitation would start running from 23.1.2006, when the knowledge of the alleged unauthorized construction was first derived by the officers of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority – that is, the Competent Authority. It is submitted that even if the period of limitation is computed in accordance with the provisions of Section 470 of the Code, still, the prosecution is clearly barred by limitation. It is submitted that the only period that can be excluded while computing the period of limitation, is the period of one month from 6.5.2006 to 5.6.2006, which is the notice period. It is submitted that the police, before filing the charge-sheet, wrote a letter to the Sanctioning authority seeking sanction as contemplated under Section 142 of the M.R.T.P. Act, on 5.9.2009. The sanction came to be granted on 9.10.2009. Thus, the period required for obtaining the sanction which would be excluded under Section 470 of the Code, read with the explanation below subsection (3) thereof, is of one month and four days. It is contended that, therefore, only the period of the notice i.e. of one month and the time required for obtaining the sanction which is of one month four days i.e. a total period of two months and four days can be excluded in accordance with the provisions of Section 470 of the Code, in computing the period of limitation, prescribed for taking the cognizance of the offence in question. It is contended that going by the date of knowledge, i.e. 23.1.2006, and the date of filing of charge-sheet, i.e. 20.3.2010, the prosecution against the petitioners has been launched after a period of four years, one month and twenty eight days, from the date on which the authority competent to prosecute the petitioners learnt about the alleged offence. It is submitted that even if the period of two months and four days is excluded from this period of four years one month and twenty eight days, still there has been a delay of eleven months and twenty four days, in launching the prosecution. It is submitted that even if the period of two months and four days is excluded from this period of four years one month and twenty eight days, still there has been a delay of eleven months and twenty four days, in launching the prosecution. That, since there is no order condoning the delay, the cognizance of the alleged offence which has been taken in contravention of the provisions of Section 468 of the Code, is bad in law, and the prosecution of the petitioners is therefore liable to be quashed. 7. On behalf of the State, it is contended that there would be no question of the offence in question being barred by limitation. It is contended that the offence in question is a “continuing offence”, and therefore, a fresh period of limitation shall run at every moment of the time during which the offence continues, as per the provisions of Section 472 of the Code. It is contended that as the alleged unauthorized construction that has been carried out still continues to exist, the wrong is occurring every moment, and that, therefore, there is no question of the prosecution of the petitioners being barred by limitation. 8. Before discussing as to whether the offence in question is a “continuing offence” as contemplated under Section 472 of the Code, and incidentally, when an offence can be said to be “a continuing one”, we may examine the reasons given by the learned Magistrate, as well as by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in revision, while rejecting the plea of the “bar of limitation” of the petitioners. A perusal of the order dated 1.11.2011 passed by the Magistrate indicates that two considerations weighed with him in rejecting the contentions of the petitioners. The first is, that charge had already been framed by him in the matter, when the application for “rescinding cognizance of the alleged offences” was made before him. The Magistrate was of the view that the application filed by the petitioners was an application for discharge and since charge had been framed, the application for discharge was not maintainable. 9. It may be observed at this stage itself, that this reasoning of the Magistrate is not proper. The Magistrate was of the view that the application filed by the petitioners was an application for discharge and since charge had been framed, the application for discharge was not maintainable. 9. It may be observed at this stage itself, that this reasoning of the Magistrate is not proper. It is true that, once a charge is framed, an application for discharge would not lie before the court, but this applies to cases where the discharge is sought on the ground of insufficiency of material for framing of charge. The framing of charge being indicative of the opinion of the court about the existence of sufficient grounds for proceeding against an accused, the court cannot be called upon to reconsider the matter and come to a conclusion, that there are no sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. It is, therefore, that, after framing of charge, an application for discharge would not be entertained, but this reasoning would not be applicable where the termination of proceedings is sought on the ground of some legal defect, such as, 'bar of limitation', 'want of sanction' etc. Such termination of proceedings, is not a 'discharge' proper, but it is also not 'acquittal'. Such termination, therefore, is termed as discharge to distinguish it from acquittal. Thus, when a plea of bar of limitation was raised, the Magistrate could not have rejected the plea on the ground that there was sufficient material to make out a prima facie case and / or that charge had already been framed. 10. The second consideration which weighed with the Magistrate is that the offence in question was a “continuing offence.” The Magistrate has, however, not been plain in that regard, and has made certain observations, from which it appears that he was not clear about the reasons for rejecting the plea of bar of limitation. The Magistrate observed that after a notice to remove the unauthorized work was served upon the petitioners, they had moved an application for regularization of the construction through their architect, and that, time was consumed in the said process. The Magistrate also observed that in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 470, the period of notice for prosecution or the period required for obtaining sanction, was required to be excluded, and that, in the present case, such notice had been given. The Magistrate also observed that in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 470, the period of notice for prosecution or the period required for obtaining sanction, was required to be excluded, and that, in the present case, such notice had been given. The Magistrate overlooked that even if the period of notice was excluded, still, the offence in question would be barred by limitation. Therefore, though the Magistrate made a reference to the offence being “continuous”, his reasoning in that regard is not disclosed in the order and a number of vague propositions are found in the order. 11. In revision, the Sessions court came to the conclusion, that no error was committed by the learned Magistrate while rejecting the plea of the petitioners. The learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the offence in question was a “continuing offence.” The learned Sessions Judge also held that the court was competent to condone the delay and take the cognizance of the offence in question, even after the expiry of the period of limitation, as provided for, under Section 473 of the Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that no formal application for condonation of delay was necessary in law. In short, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the view, firstly, that the offence in question, was a “continuing offence”, and therefore, the bar of limitation would not be applicable, and secondly, the court was empowered to take cognizance of the alleged offence, even after the period of limitation, and without a formal application. The view of the learned Additional Sessions Judge was that the use of the unauthorized construction was still going on, and therefore, the offence in question was a “continuing one.” 12. There is substance in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not considered the matter from a proper perspective. The view of the learned Additional Sessions Judge was that the use of the unauthorized construction was still going on, and therefore, the offence in question was a “continuing one.” 12. There is substance in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not considered the matter from a proper perspective. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after narrating the facts of the case, and after referring to the case law cited by the parties, made the following observations: I am of the view that if the construction was unauthorized and illegal, it is always unauthorized and illegal until it is made regularized or demolished by the competent authority............................If the stigma of unauthorized construction is continuing, the use of such construction on the land in question is certainly inviting the penal law against the person who was concerned with unauthorized construction and use of land with unauthorized construction. Continuous use of such …....... is penalized by the competent authority or court. Thus, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has emphasised on the existence of the unauthorized construction which was continuing and has opined that continuous use of such construction is a “continuing offence.” The learned Sessions Judge overlooked that the petitioners were being prosecuted for not complying with the notice given under sub-section (1) of the said section, and not for the use of the land with unauthorized construction, and therefore, the continuous use of the land was not the factor relevant for determining whether the offence punishable under Section 53(7) is a “continuing offence.” In view of the contentions raised by the petitioners, the crucial aspect which needed consideration was, whether the offence punishable under sub-section (7) of Section 53 of the M.R.T.P. Act would be “complete”, as soon as the requisition in the notice under sub-section (1) has not been complied with, and that, therefore, would not be a “continuing offence.” The question was whether failure to comply with the notice is a “continuing offence” or ought to be treated as such. Clearly, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not addressed himself to this precise aspect of the matter. 13. The crucial aspect which needs to be decided is, whether the offence in question is a “continuing offence.” 14. Clearly, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not addressed himself to this precise aspect of the matter. 13. The crucial aspect which needs to be decided is, whether the offence in question is a “continuing offence.” 14. Section 472 does not state or define what is a “continuing offence.” However, the Supreme Court of India had an occasion to decide as to what amounts to a “continuing offence” in several of its authoritative pronouncements. It has been held, by authoritative judicial pronouncements that the expression “continuing offence” has not been defined in the Code, because it is one of those expressions, which cannot have a fixed connotation, and therefore, no formula of universal application can be applied in such cases. The concept, therefore, needs to be understood by referring to the case-law. 15. A reference may now be made to some decisions on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 16. In STATE OF BIHAR vs. DEOKARAN NENSHI AND OTHERS AIR 1973 SC 908 , Their Lordships of the Supreme Court of India, observed as under, in this context: 5. Continuing offence is one which is susceptible of continuance and is distinguishable from the one which is committed once and for all. It is one of those offenses which arises out of a failure to obey or comply with a rule or its requirement and which involves a penalty, the liability for which continues until the rule or its requirement is obeyed or complied with. On every occasion that such disobedience or non-compliance occurs and recurs, there is the offence committed. The distinction between the two kinds of offenses is between an act or omission which constitutes an offence once and for all and an act or omission which continues and therefore, constitutes a fresh offence every time or occasion on which it continues. In the case of a continuing offence, there is thus the ingredient of continuance of the offence which is absent in the case of an offence which takes place when an act or omission is committed once and for all. (Emphasis supplied). 17. In RAVI TRADERS vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS 2006 CRI.L.J.2156, the question as to whether Section 216 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act 1993 was a “continuing offence” fell for the consideration of a learned Single Judge of Gujarat High Court. (Emphasis supplied). 17. In RAVI TRADERS vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS 2006 CRI.L.J.2156, the question as to whether Section 216 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act 1993 was a “continuing offence” fell for the consideration of a learned Single Judge of Gujarat High Court. Section 216 of the said Act read as under: 216. Where any animal or goods passing into village are liable to the payment of octroi, any person, who with the intention of defrauding the village panchayat caused or abets the introduction of or himself introduces or attempts to introduce within the octroi limits of such village any such animal or goods upon which payment of the octroi due on such introduction has neither been made or tendered, or who fails to comply with any direction given by the officer demanding the octroi levied by the authority of panchayat with reference to the introduction of the animal or goods within the octroi limits shall be punished, on conviction, with fine which may extend to ten times the amount of such octroi or to two thousand rupees, whichever may be greater. Based on the language employed in the said Section, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the offence envisaged is complete when goods or animals are introduced within octroi limits, and that act is not continuing one. It was observed that if the wrongful act or omission causes an injury which is complete, the same is not continuing wrong, even though damage resulting from such wrong may continue, but the default committed cannot be said to be continuous along with the damage. It was held that the said offence would not be a “continuing offence.” 18. In DINABANDHU BANERJEE vs. NANDINI MUKHERJEE 1994 CRI.L.J. 422 a learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court held that the offences of dishonest misappropriation and criminal breach of trust are not “continuing offences.” 19. Reference may now be made to the judgments on which reliance has been placed by the State. In GOKAK PATEL VOLKART LIMITED vs. DUNDAYYA GURUSHIDDAIAH HIREMATH 1991 (2) SCC 141 the Supreme Court of India considered whether an offence punishable under Section 630 of the Companies Act is a “continuing offence” within the meaning of Section 472 of the Code. Reference may now be made to the judgments on which reliance has been placed by the State. In GOKAK PATEL VOLKART LIMITED vs. DUNDAYYA GURUSHIDDAIAH HIREMATH 1991 (2) SCC 141 the Supreme Court of India considered whether an offence punishable under Section 630 of the Companies Act is a “continuing offence” within the meaning of Section 472 of the Code. Their Lordships, after observing, inter alia, that not only wrongfully obtaining but also wrongfully withholding of the property of the Company having been made an offence punishable under the said section, it was a “continuing offence.” In coming to the conclusion Their Lordships made a reference to the previous decision of the Supreme court in STATE OF BIHAR vs. DEOKARAN NENSHI (supra). 20. In BHAGIRATH KANORIA vs. STATE OF M.P. (PROVIDENT FUND INSPECTOR) AIR 1984 SC 1688 the question that arose before the Supreme Court of India was whether failure to pay the employers' contribution to the provident fund is a “continuing offence.” After considering the relevant legal provisions and after referring to DEOKARAN NENSHI (supra), Their Lordships held that the said offence was a “continuing offence” within the meaning of Section 472 of the Code. 21. In a recent decision of the Supreme Court in UDAI SHANKAR AWASTHI vs. STATE OF U.P. & ANR. Criminal Appeal No.62 of 2013 decided on 9.1.2013, after taking a review of a number of decisions, including the decisions in GOKAK PATEL (supra), DEOKARAN NENSHI (supra) and BHAGIRATH KANORIA (supra), Their Lordships concluded as follows: Thus, in view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that, in the case of a continuing offence, the ingredients of the offence continue, i.e., endure even after the period of consummation, whereas in an instantaneous offence, the offence takes place once and for all i.e. when the same actually takes place. In such cases, there is no continuing offence, even though the damage resulting from the injury may itself continue. 22. A perusal of the decided cases including those cited above, leaves no manner of doubt that the expression “continuing offence” has not been claimed to be capable of any precise definition which can be applied in all the cases. In such cases, there is no continuing offence, even though the damage resulting from the injury may itself continue. 22. A perusal of the decided cases including those cited above, leaves no manner of doubt that the expression “continuing offence” has not been claimed to be capable of any precise definition which can be applied in all the cases. Perhaps, it is because the expression “continuing offence” does not have a fixed connotation, it has not been defined in the Code, so that, it could not be used as a formula of universal application. The courts have also refrained from attaching a fixed meaning to this expression, so that, it could be mechanically decided whether a particular offence is a “continuing offence” or not. The decision in DEOKARAN NENSHI (supra) was referred to in BHAGIRATH KANORIA (supra). It would be necessary, therefore, to examine the facts of the said case as reflected from the judgment delivered by Their Lordships in BHAGIRATH KANORIA (supra). In that case, the Provident Fund Inspector had filed complaint against the Director, Factory Manager and the respondent Company, charging them of an offence punishable under Section 14(2A) of the Employees' Provident Fund and Family Pension Fund Act, 19 of 1952. It was alleged that the accused therein had failed to pay the employers' contribution under the said Act for the period from February 1970 to June 1971. In that case, the accused Company had been granted exemption under Section 17 of the said Act from operation of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme 1952, framed under the said Act. The exemption was granted on the condition that the Company would transfer monthly collection of the provident fund of workers, inclusive of the employers' contribution, to the Board of Trustees of Fund, within fifteen days of the close of each month. Section 14(2A) of the said Act read as under: 14(2A). Whoever contravenes or makes default in complying with any provision of this Act or of any condition subject to which exemption was granted under S.17 shall, if no other penalty is elsewhere provided by or under this Act for such contravention or noncompliance, be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Under paragraph 38(1) of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, the mode of payment of contribution was stipulated as follows: 38. Under paragraph 38(1) of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, the mode of payment of contribution was stipulated as follows: 38. Mode of payment of contribution. (1) The employer shall, before paying the member his wages in respect of any period or part of period for which contributions are payable, deduct the employees' contribution from his wages which together with his own contribution....... he shall, within fifteen days of the close of every month, pay ….. to the Fund. A plea was taken by the accused persons at the commencement of the trial that the limitation prescribed by Section 468 of the Code had expired before the filing of the complaints and that the court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the alleged offences. The learned Magistrate rejected the said plea on the ground that the offences in question were “continuing offences.” The said order was challenged by the accused persons by approaching the High court of M.P., but a learned Single Judge of the High court upheld the order of the Magistrate. Under those circumstances, the accused had approached the Supreme Court of India. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that the offence of non-payment of employers' contribution can be committed once and for all on the expiry of 15 days after the close of every month, and therefore, prosecution for that offence must be launched within the period of limitation mentioned in Section 468 of the Code. Their Lordships did not accept this contention. It was observed that the expression “continuing offence” did not have a fixed connotation or a static import, and such expressions are therefore difficult to define. After referring to the case of DEOKARAN NENSHI (supra) and reproducing the observations made in paragraph 5 of the said reported judgment (which has been reproduced above), Their Lordships observed as follows: This passage shows that apart from saying that a continuing offence is one which continues and a non-continuing offence is one which is committed once and for all, the Court found it difficult to explain as to when an offence can be described as a continuing offence. Seeing that difficulty, the Court observed that a few illustrative cases would help to bring out the distinction between a continuing offence and a non-continuing offence. (Emphasis supplied). After considering the illustrative cases referred to in DEOKARAN NENSHI (supra), Their Lordships observed as follows : 18. Seeing that difficulty, the Court observed that a few illustrative cases would help to bring out the distinction between a continuing offence and a non-continuing offence. (Emphasis supplied). After considering the illustrative cases referred to in DEOKARAN NENSHI (supra), Their Lordships observed as follows : 18. The decision of this Court in State of Bihar v. Deokaran Nenshi ( AIR 1973 SC 908 ) to the effect that failure to furnish returns before the due date is not a continuing offence must be confined to cases of failure to furnish returns. It cannot be extended to cases like those before us in which, the contravention is not of a procedural or formal nature and goes against the very grain of the statute under consideration. What is of closer resemblance to the cases before us are the three English cases, the two Bombay cases and the Patna case referred to by this Court as illustrative of cases in which the offences were held to be of a continuing nature. We adopt the reasoning in those cases as applicable to the circumstances of the instant prosecutions. 19. 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. Turning to the matters before us, the offence of which the appellants are charged is the failure to pay the employer's contribution before the due date. Considering the object and purpose of this provision, which is to ensure the welfare of workers, we find it impossible to hold that the offence is not of a continuing nature. The appellants were unquestionably liable to pay their contribution to the Provident Fund before the due date and it was within their power to pay it, as soon after the due date had expired as they willed. The late payment could not have absolved them of their original guilt, but it would have snapped the recurrence. Each day that they failed to comply with the obligation to pay their contribution to the Fund, they committed a fresh offence. The late payment could not have absolved them of their original guilt, but it would have snapped the recurrence. Each day that they failed to comply with the obligation to pay their contribution to the Fund, they committed a fresh offence. It is putting an incredible premium on lack of concern for the welfare of workers to hold that the employer who has not paid his contribution or the contribution of the employees, to the Provident Fund can successfully evade the penal consequences of his act by pleading the law of limitation. Such offences must be regarded as continuing offences, to which the law of limitation cannot apply. (Emphasis supplied). 23. It is in the background of the legal position, as is emerging from the aforesaid discussion, that the question as to whether the offence punishable under Section 53(7) of the M.R.T.P. Act is a “continuing offence” or not, is to be considered. The offence consists of failure to comply with the notice given under sub-section (1) of the said section, and in that sense, the offence would be complete as soon as the requisition mentioned in the notice under sub-section (1) has not been complied with. In the instant case, the notice calls upon the accused persons to demolish the unauthorized work and mentions that on the failure to comply with the said requisition within one month, the addressee would be liable for prosecution under the said Act. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the offence punishable under Section 53(7) would be complete after the expiry of the period of one month, in the event of failure to comply with the said requisition, within the period stipulated, and that, therefore, the offence in question cannot be termed as a “continuing offence.” It is true that even if the requisition would be carried out subsequently, i.e. after the stipulated period, still, technically, the addressee could be prosecuted for having committed the offence in question. It is true that the liability to be prosecuted in respect of the said offence would arise as soon as the period stipulated in the notice would be over, and the requisition remains uncomplied with. However, it is difficult to accept that, that by itself would indicate that the offence in question would be not a “continuing offence.” 24. It is true that the liability to be prosecuted in respect of the said offence would arise as soon as the period stipulated in the notice would be over, and the requisition remains uncomplied with. However, it is difficult to accept that, that by itself would indicate that the offence in question would be not a “continuing offence.” 24. An unauthorized development can be dealt with by the Planning Authority in a number of ways. It can be got demolished in accordance with law. The authority and power to require removal of an unauthorized development would continue, till such unauthorized development is regularized under the provisions of the M.R.T.P. Act. It is true that simply because the benefit of the alleged offence is retained by the wrong doer, the offence would not be termed as a “continuing offence.” For instance, the offence of theft cannot be termed as a continuous offence, merely because the stolen property is not restored to the owner by the thief. However, merely because the petitioners would be liable to be prosecuted immediately after the expiry of the period stipulated in the notice, and merely because their complying with the requisition contained in the notice would not absolve them of the criminal liability already incurred by them, the offence cannot be said to be not a continuing one. Thus, it all depends on the nature of the offence and the purpose which is intended to be achieved by constituting the particular act as an offence. The observations made by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court of India in BHAGIRATH KANORIA (supra) which have been reproduced earlier, leave no manner of doubt that even where the offence would be complete – in the sense that the offender would be liable to be prosecuted for the same – it could still be considered as a “continuing offence.” The reasoning as is reflected from a perusal of the judgment delivered by Their Lordships is that the obligation to pay the contribution to the fund continued even after the expiry of the period of 15 days of the close of every month. If in this context the relevant provisions of the M.R.T.P. Act are examined, they indicate that the obligation to remove or demolish the unauthorized construction shall continue even after the period stipulated in the notice under subsection (1) of Section 53 would expire. If in this context the relevant provisions of the M.R.T.P. Act are examined, they indicate that the obligation to remove or demolish the unauthorized construction shall continue even after the period stipulated in the notice under subsection (1) of Section 53 would expire. Though the notice requires the owner of the unauthorized construction to remove or demolish the unauthorized construction work in question within a specified period, it cannot be construed as if in the event of not complying with the requisition contained in the notice within the specified period, the obligation to remove the unauthorized construction work, would cease to exist. In this context it is also significant to note that sub-section (1) of Section 53 itself does not provide for any period during which the owner / addressee of the notice would be required to comply with the notice except laying down that such period shall not be less than one month. The Planning Authority is empowered to give much more period to the owner / addressee and is not bound to call upon the owner / addressee to comply with the requisition within the period of one month. Sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 53 indicate that the Planning Authority even after issuance of notice would consider – rather is bound to consider – any subsequent proposal submitted or permission sought, by the owner for regularization of the work in question. Thus, the period for removal of the unauthorized construction by the owner has not been laid down by the statute (except for providing the minimum period) and it is left to the Planning Authority to decide as to how much time is to be given to the owner for removing the unauthorized work. If the provisions are carefully considered, they leave no manner of doubt that the basic requirement is that the offender should remove the unauthorized construction work, and that the period specified for such removal is only for giving the offender an opportunity to set the things right, and if within the period specified in the notice, the requisition contained therein is complied therewith, the offence punishable under subsection (7) of Section 53 would be washed out. In BHAGIRATH KANORIA (supra) also the offence would be complete – so to say – on failure of the Company to deposit the employers' contribution within fifteen days of the close of each month. In BHAGIRATH KANORIA (supra) also the offence would be complete – so to say – on failure of the Company to deposit the employers' contribution within fifteen days of the close of each month. However, inspite of this, the offence in question was held to be a continuing one. In coming to this conclusion, Their Lordships of the Supreme court were influenced by the fact that the obligation to pay the contribution to the fund continued even after the expiry of the period of fifteen days. 25. In the instant case, it cannot be said that the obligation to remove the unauthorized construction did not continue after the expiry of the period of one month, as stipulated in the notice. Laying down that the addressee would be liable for prosecution, on failure to comply with the requisition contained in a notice within one month, would not mean that the liability or requirement to comply with the requisition existed only for a period of one month. All that it means is that before the expiry of one month, the addressee would not be liable for prosecution and it is only after the expiry of one month, the addressee would be liable for prosecution in the event of non-compliance with the requisition. This cannot be construed as doing away with the necessity of complying with the requisition after the expiry of the period of one month. In other words, the requisition in the notice dated 6.5.2006 cannot be construed as a requisition to demolish the unauthorized work in question only within one month, but has to be construed as a general requisition to demolish / remove the unauthorized work; and the reference to the period of one month, only relates to the period after which the addressee would be liable for prosecution. Merely because the addressee would be exposed to the prosecution for noncompliance with the requisition after a period of one month, it cannot be construed that the wrong of failure to comply with the requisition did not persist thereafter. 26. In my opinion, the reasoning of Their Lordships of the Supreme Court of India in BHAGIRATH KANORIA (supra) squarely applies to the present case and therefore, the offence in question, should be held as a “continuing offence.” 27. There is also another aspect of the matter. 26. In my opinion, the reasoning of Their Lordships of the Supreme Court of India in BHAGIRATH KANORIA (supra) squarely applies to the present case and therefore, the offence in question, should be held as a “continuing offence.” 27. There is also another aspect of the matter. Sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 53 indicate that within the period specified in the notice, the person aggrieved by such notice can apply for the necessary permission under Section 44 of the Act, and that, pending the final determination or withdrawal of the application, the mere notice itself shall not affect the retention of the buildings or works in question. Sub-section (5) makes it clear that if the permission applied for is granted, the notice shall stand withdrawn, but if the permission applied for is not granted, the notice shall stand. If the notice stands, the addressee would be required to take the steps specified in the notice under sub-section (1). Sub-section (6) which defines the offence punishable under subsection (7) of Section 53, makes it clear that the Planning Authority might prosecute the owner of such unauthorized work (addressee of the notice) for not complying with the notice, within the period specified in the notice, or within the same period after the disposal of the application for permission under Section 44. Thus, it would be open for the addressee to make a representation and seek permission for the regularization or authorization of the unauthorized work, to which, the notice under sub-section (1) of Section 53 relates, and if the requisite permission is not granted, the addressee would be required to comply with the requisition within the period specified in the notice to be computed from the time of disposal of his application, seeking the necessary permission. In the instant case, a reading of the FIR shows that after the receipt of the notice dated 6.5.2006, the petitioners had, by a letter dated 18.5.2006, requested the Competent Authority to regularize the unauthorized work on levy of fine. This request was turned down on 25.1.2007. Thus, the period of one month specified in the notice would start running from the date of the said rejection. It also appears that on 25.6.2008, again a revised plan was submitted by the petitioners and the matter was being considered by the concerned authorities till 12.5.2009. This request was turned down on 25.1.2007. Thus, the period of one month specified in the notice would start running from the date of the said rejection. It also appears that on 25.6.2008, again a revised plan was submitted by the petitioners and the matter was being considered by the concerned authorities till 12.5.2009. Thus, in the scheme of the relevant provisions, which, inter alia, provide for exclusion of the period, during which the application or proposal seeking permission to carry out the construction in question, was under consideration of the concerned authorities, when would the period of limitation start running in a given case, would need serious consideration. Ordinarily, such representations and their considerations would not stop the running of the period of limitation, but here, the provisions of sub-sections (3), (4), (5) and (6) of Section 53 of the M.R.T.P. Act leave no manner of doubt that the prosecution in respect of an offence punishable under sub-section (7) thereof, will not be maintainable, till the expiry of the period specified in the notice – computed from the time of the disposal of such application / representation seeking necessary permission, (in case such a permission is sought for, after the receipt of notice under sub-section (1)). It is possible that repeated representations might not be covered by the relevant provisions, but this aspect would need to be decided in the light of the facts of the case particularly with reference to what was the understanding between the concerned authorities and the person to whom the notice under sub-section (1) is addressed. It cannot be said that in the present case, this aspect would not arise. At any rate, it can be safely said that where a representation for regularization of the alleged unauthorized construction has been made after the receipt of the notice under sub-section (1) of Section 53, and entertained by the Competent Authority, when would the criminal liability for noncompliance with the requisition contained in the notice would first arise cannot be decided without considering the factual aspects. The question of limitation in such cases, would not be only a question purely of law, but rather, would be a mixed question of fact and law. Such issue, therefore ought not to be attempted to be decided in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 28. There is also one more aspect of the matter. The question of limitation in such cases, would not be only a question purely of law, but rather, would be a mixed question of fact and law. Such issue, therefore ought not to be attempted to be decided in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 28. There is also one more aspect of the matter. The exercise of writ jurisdiction, which is of extraordinary nature, is discretionary. The court is not bound to issue a writ merely because it would be lawful to do so. A court may refuse to issue a writ if there is no failure of justice. One of the grounds for refusing relief to a petitioner would be that such petitioner has been guilty of delay and latches. In the instant case, the petitioners allowed the prosecution instituted against them to advance to the stage of framing of a Charge, and only thereafter, raised the issue of bar of limitation before the learned Magistrate. The raising of this issue, when the case before the Magistrate was kept for recording of evidence, indicates that the petitioners had not been diligent in protecting their alleged rights. Considering this aspect of the matter, coupled with the fact that the wrong allegedly committed by the petitioners continues till date, this court would be justified in declining to exercise the writ jurisdiction, instead of going deeper into a hairsplitting argument, as to what constitutes a “continuing offence” and whether the offence in question is a “continuing offence.” 29. The Petition therefore fails. 30. One aspect of the matter, however, needs to be clarified. The only point that was urged before this court was that the cognizance of the offence was barred by limitation, and therefore, could not have been taken in the absence of an express order condoning the delay. What was urged was that the offence punishable under sub-section (7) of Section 53 is not a “continuing offence.” I have, therefore, examined only this aspect of the matter. I have not examined whether the police report and accompanying documents, on the basis of which the petitioners are being prosecuted, allege or disclose the commission of an offence punishable under Section 53(7) of the M.R.T.P. Act. I have not examined whether the police report and accompanying documents, on the basis of which the petitioners are being prosecuted, allege or disclose the commission of an offence punishable under Section 53(7) of the M.R.T.P. Act. The reason for specifically mentioning this is that in the FIR and also in the 'facts of the case', as mentioned in Column No.17 of the printed prescribed proforma of the police report, the emphasis is only 'on the accused persons having carried out construction work beyond the sanctioned plans.' Thus, though there is a mention of the offence punishable under Section 53(7) of the M.R.T.P. Act, there is no reference to the notice under sub-section (1) of Section 53, and there is no mention that the petitioners are being prosecuted for non-complying with the requisition contained in the said notice. It appears that carrying out unauthorized construction work is, by itself, an offence under Section 52 of the M.R.T.P. Act, though, not under Section 53(7). Since the calling of record and proceedings was dispensed with, there has been no occasion or opportunity to examine what Charge has actually been framed against the petitioners, and whether the Charge as framed, is consistent with the allegations in the police report and accompanying documents. Anyway, these aspects can be – and should be – looked into by the learned Magistrate and it will be his responsibility to see that proper charge/s in respect of proper offences, if any, disclosed from the police report and accompanying documents, is / are framed against the petitioners. He possesses all the powers in that regard by virtue of Section 216 of the Code. 31. The fact, however, remains that no interference in the matter is called for. 32. The Petition is dismissed. 33. The learned Magistrate shall proceed further with the case in accordance with law and keeping in mind the observations made in the foregoing paragraph.