STATE OF BIHAR versus DEOKARAN NENSHI

Citation: [1973] 1 S.C.R. 1004 · Decided: 24-08-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1004 
STATE OF BIHAR 
v. 
DEOKARAN NENSHI 
August 24, 1972 
[J.·M. SHELAT AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.] 
Mines .Act 1952-S. 66-Failure to furnish returns-If 
an ofje11ce 
·<.-'<J\:ered by s. 70 or lvhether a continuing offence-Tests. 
The respondents arc the owners of a. stone quarry in Bombay. Under 
Regulation 3 of the Indian Metallif<rrous Mines Regulations 1926, an 
o\\ner, agent or manager of a mine is required to forward to the District 
l\1agistrate and to the Chief Inspectors annual returns in respect of the 
preceding yeas in the forms prescribed on or before the 21st January in 
c•ch year. 
Under Section 66 of .the Mines Act 1952, a person omitting 
. to furnish the returns 
is Jiabie to pay a \fine which 
may extend to 
Rs. 1,000/·. 
The respondents faileo to furnish to the Chief Inspector the annual 
returns for the year 1!159 
by the 21st January, 
1960 even after 
'varning from the Chief Inspector. A complaint, was filed in the Court 
<if the Magistrate, Dhanbad, on April 12, 1961. Two 
questions were 
<lgitated before the trial Court, the High Court, and also before tbi> Court. 
( l) That Dhanbad Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint 
and (2) that the complaint was basred by limitation under s. 79 of the 
Mines Act 1952, which provided that no Court shall take cognizance of 
.a.n offence under the Act unless a complaint was made \vithin six months 
from the date o'f the offence. The explanation to the section providl!-ll 
th.at if the offence in question 
\~·as a continuing offence, the period of 
limitation shall be computed \Vith 
reference to every part of the time 
.Juring \vhich the said offence continued. 
Dismissing the appea1, 
HELD : · ( 1) The failure to furnish, the annual returns by January 21. 
in the succeeding year, is undoubtedly an offence punishable under s. 66 
of the Mines Act. 
A complaint has to 
be filed under s. 79, \\ithin 6 
months from the date of the offence; but as regards the question whether 
the offence was covered by s. 79 or whether it was a continulng offence, 
covered by the Explanation 1hereto, it was held that a continuing offence 
is one which is susceptible of continuance and is distinguishable from th~ 
one which is committed once and for all. The distinctiori between the t?.·o 
kinds of offences is bet\'\·een an act or omission which constitutes an off~ 
.cnce once and for all and an act or omission \vhich continue1, and there .. 
fore, constitutes a fresh offence every time or occasion on whicll it conti .. 
nues. 
In the case of a continuing offence, there is thus the ingredient of 
-continuance of the offence whlch is absent in the case of an offence 
\Vhich takes place \Vhen an act or omlssion is committed once anU for all. 
11006C-GJ 
The London County Council v. Worley, [1894] 2 Q.B. 826, Butler and 
l'itZJ:bhar, [1932] 2 K.B. 108, Vernev v. Marie Fletcher & 
Sons Ltd. 
ll909] I K.B. 444, Rex v. Talor, !1908] 2 K.B. 237 and Emperor v. 
Karsandoz. A.I.R. Born. 326, referred to. 
(ii) Regulation 3 read with s. 66 of tbe Mines Act, makes failure to 
furnish annual returns 'for the preceding year by the 21st of January of 
the succeeding year, an offence. 
The language of Regulation 3 cf early 
Gn<licates that a mine owner, or his agent, \\'ouJd be Hable to penalty, if 
,\ 
, 
JI 
c 
D 
E 
F 
• 
G 
II -
A 
B 
c 
" 
E 
F 
G 
H 
BIHAR v. DEOKARAN (She/at, J.) 
1005' 
he fails to furnish the returns on or before January 21 of the succeeding 
year. The infringement, in the present case, therefore, o'7p.rs on J~u­
ary 21 of the relevant year and is complete on the owner fa.ding to furn!Sh 
the annual returns by that day. The Regulation does not lay down that 
the owner would be guilty of an offence if he continues to c.arry o_n the 
mine 'without furnishing the returns or that the offence continues tf the 
requirement o'f Rcgulalion 3 is.not complied.with. In other words, Regul~­
tion 3 does not render a continued d1sobechence or non-compliance of 1t 
by itsdf an oll~nce. 
Ther~forc, the complaint was time barred as 
the 
offence iu queoh<ln fell yi1thln 1hc substantive !?art .of s. 79 of the Act and 
not under t~c Explanatinn attached to 1t and m view of the second ques-
1ion 
TI1" ttr;t questio11 re•.arding jurisdktion requi1'ed no answers. 
. 
' 
' 
[1009CI 
CR1~11NAL APPELLATE JuR1so1cnoN : Cr. Appeal No. 208· 
of 1969. 
Appeal under Article 134(1) (c) of the Constitution of India 
from the judgment and order dated April 17, 1969 of the Patna 
High Cou

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.