Udai Shankar Awasthi vs. State of U.P. & Anr, Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 2013, Decided on May 9th,
2013
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held:
“Section 472 Cr.P.C. provides that in case of
a continuing offence, a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every
moment of the time period during which the offence continues. The expression,
‘continuing offence’ has not been defined in the Cr.P.C. because it is one of
those expressions which does not have a fixed connotation, and therefore, the
formula of universal application cannot be formulated in this respect”.
[Para 10]
“..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”.
[Para 16]
The Court also noted the
following case laws:
Balakrishna
Savalram Pujari Waghmare & Ors. v. Shree Dnyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan &
Ors., AIR 1959 SC 798, this Court dealt with the aforementioned issue, and
observed that a continuing offence is an act which creates a continuing source
of injury, and renders the doer of the act responsible and liable for the
continuation of the said injury. In case a wrongful act causes an injury which
is complete, there is no continuing wrong even though the damage resulting from
the said act may continue. If the wrongful act is of such character that the
injury caused by it itself continues, then the said act constitutes a
continuing wrong. The distinction between the two wrongs therefore depends, upon
the effect of the injury.
Gokak Patel
Volkart Ltd. v. Dundayya Gurushiddaiah Hiremath & Ors., (1991) 2 SCC 141,
this Court dealt with the issue and held as under:
“According to
the Blacks' Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, 'Continuing' means ‘enduring; not
terminated by a single act or fact; subsisting for a definite period or
intended to cover or apply to successive similar obligations or occurrences.’
Continuing offence means ‘type of crime which is committed over a span of
time.’ As to period of statute of limitation in a continuing offence, the last
act of the offence controls for commencement of the period. ‘A continuing
offence, such that only the last act thereof within the period of the statute
of limitations need be alleged in the indictment or information, is one which
may consist of separate acts or a course of conduct but which arises from that
singleness of thought, purpose or action which may be deemed a single impulse.’
So also a 'Continuous Crime' means "one consisting of a continuous series of
acts, which endures after the period of consummation, as, the offence of
carrying concealed weapons. In the case of instantaneous crimes, the statute of
limitation begins to run with the consummation, while in the case of continuous
crimes it only begins with the cessation of the criminal conduct or act."
State of Bihar v. Deokaran Nenshi
& Anr., AIR 1973 SC 908, wherein the court while dealing with the case of
continuance of an offence has held as under:
“A 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 offences 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 offences 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.”
M/s. Raymond Limited & Anr.,
Etc. Etc. v. Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board & Ors., Etc., AIR 2001 SC
238, this Court held as under:
“It cannot
legitimately be contended that the word "continuously" has one
definite meaning only to convey uninterrupted ness in time sequence or essence
and on the other hand the very word would also mean 'recurring at repeated
intervals so as to be of repeated occurrence'. That apart, used as an adjective
it draws colour from the context too.”
Sankar Dastidar v. Smt. Banjula
Dastidar & Anr., AIR 2007 SC 514, this Court observed as under:
“A suit for
damages, in our opinion, stands on a different footing vis--vis a continuous
wrong in respect of enjoyment of one's right in a property. When a right of way
is claimed whether public or private over a certain land over which the
tort-teaser has no right of possession, the breaches would be continuing one.
It is, however, indisputable that unless the wrong is a continuing one, period
of limitation does not stop running. Once the period begins to run, it does not
stop except where the provisions of Section 22 of the Limitation Act would
apply.”
The Court further held:
“Articles 68,
69 and 91 of the Limitation Act govern suits in respect of movable property.
For specific movable property lost or acquired by theft, or dishonest
misappropriation or conversion; knowledge as regards possession of the party
shall be the starting point of limitation in terms of Article 68. For any other
specific movable property, the time from which the period begins to run would
be when the property is wrongfully taken, in terms of Article 69. Article 91
provides for a period of limitation in respect of a suit for compensation for
wrongfully taking or injuring or wrongfully detaining any other specific
movable property. The time from which the period begins to run would be when
the property is wrongfully taken or injured or when the detainer's possession
becomes unlawful.
Bhagirath Kanoria & Ors. v.
State of M.P., AIR 1984 SC 688;
Amrit Lal Chum v. Devoprasad
Dutta Roy, AIR 1988 SC 733
To see full text follow the link: