Continuing offence means a transaction, or a series of acts set on foot by a single impulse, and operated by an unintermittent force, no matter how long a time it may occupy.
According to the Blacks’ Law dictionary,“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.”
In simple terms, continuing offence is an offence which remains continued over aspan of time.
Though our legislature does not provide any definition of ‘Continuing Offence’ but there are numerous occasions on which judicial Officers have considered this issue and made it’s concept clear while pronouncing judgments.
LEGAL ENACTMENTS
Section 472 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 says that in case of a continuing offence, a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment of time during which the offence continues.
Sometimes there comes a situation where an offence continues to occur over a prolonged period of time. So, then in such circumstances it seems difficult to determine the period of limitation. The paramount object of inserting this provision is to safeguard the interest of the aggrieved person or a litigantin case an offence alleged is a continued one and enable the courts in meeting the ends of Justice.
INSTANCES OF CONTINUING OFFENCES
Cases of Domestic Violence
The concept of continuing offence has been applied by the courts in many domestic violence cases such as:
In the case of “Kamatchi vs Lakshmi Narayanan, Criminal Appeal No.627 of 2022”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the limitation period prescribed under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not applicable for the filing of an application by an aggrieved woman under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Also, In this case titled as “Krishna Bhattacharjee v. Sarathi Choudhury, (2016) 2 SCC 705”, the question that arose before Hon’ble Court was whether wife can take’stridhan’ back from her husband after judicial separation under section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005? While answering to this contention of the wife, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the concept of “continuing offence” gets attractedfrom the date of deprivation of Stridhan. Stridhan is the exclusive right of the wife and the husband and his family members are mere custodians.
As long as the status of the aggrieved person remains with wife and Stridhanremains in the custody of the husband, the wife can always put forth her claim under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Abduction
Abduction is defined under Section 362 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It says that any person who by force compels, or by any deceitful means induces any person to go from any place, is said to commit an offence of abduction.
Abduction is a continuing offence and continues so long as the movement of the abducted person continues from one place to another due to forceful compulsion and deceitful means.
In the case titled as “Vikas Chaudhary vs State of Nct Of Delhi &Anr, SLP (Crl.) No. 8628 of 2009”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that offence of murder coupled with abduction would be considered as a continuing offence and held that “even after the death of the victim every time a ransom call was made a fresh period of limitation commenced. Accordingly, it would be the date on which the last ransom call was made, i.e., 11th March, 2003, which has to be taken to be the date of commission of the offence and, accordingly, the Juvenile Justice Act was no longer applicable to the Petitioner, who had attained the age of 18 years by then.”
Cruelty
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 provides for the provision of Cruelty. The object of this provision is to combat the menace of dowry deaths and harassment to a woman at the hands of her husband or his relatives.
The Hon’ble High Court in the case titled as “JagdishAndOrs. vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr,1998 CriLJ 554, was of the opinion thatthe offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code,1860 is a continuing offence and if the act of cruelty continues even while the woman is living at her parents house, the offence is triable by both the Courts in whose territorial jurisdiction the act of continuing offence of cruelty has been committed at matrimonial home or the parents house.
Cases under Companies Act
An expression “continuing offence” also finds its space in the acts like Companies Act,2013. There are various provisions under Companies Act which talks about continuing offences.
In the case of “Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd VersusDundayyaGurushiddaiahHiremath&Ors,1991 SCR (1) 396”, the question whether a particular offence is a ‘continuing offence’ or not must, therefore, necessarily depend upon the language of the statute which creates that offence, the nature of the offence and the purpose intended to be achieved by constituting the particular act as an offence.It is an offence committed over a span of time and the last act of the offence will control the commencement of the period of limitation. So, 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.”
Also in the case titled as “Siddhartha Sen Versus Registrar of Companies Orissa, decided on, 27 March 2009”,a question that came into consideration before the Hon’ble High Court was whether non-filing of return on the due date is in the nature of “continuous offence” or not? Therein, the Hon’ble Orissa High Court has asserted that the test laid down in the case of State of Bihar Versus DeokaranNenshi 1973 AIR 908should be applied. Therefore, the Hon’ble Court has held that the distinctive nature of a continuing wrong is that the law that is violated makes the wrongdoer continuously liable for penalty. A wrong or default which is complete but whose effect may continue to be felt even after its completion is, however, not a continuing wrong or default. Therefore, it held that an act of non-filing of return on the due date is not a “continuous wrong.”
Many other instances have also came to light where the expression “continuing offence” has clearly been defined.
Few Relevant Judgments
There is plethoraof judgments in which court has dealt with the issue of continuing offence.
Here let’s exemplify few of them.
State of Bihar VersusDeokaranNenshi 1973 AIR 908,
In this present case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “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.”
Udai Shankar Awasthi Versus State of U.P.&Anr, Criminal Appeal No.61 and 62 of 2013
The Hon’ble Supreme Court by placing reliance on the above-mentioned judgment has stated 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. 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.
BalkrishnaSavalram Pujari and Others Versus Shree DnyaneshwarMaharajsansthan& Others, 1959 AIR 798
Herein this instant case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has 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.
BhagirathKanoria&Ors. Etc Versus State Of M.P. &Ors.,1984 AIR 1688A question that raised in the present case was whether failure to pay the employers’ contribution to the Provident Fund under the Employees’ Provident Fund and Family Pension Fund Act,19 of 1952is continuing offence. To which Apex Court has said that 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. 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 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.
The concept of continuing offence does not wipe out the original guilt. It keeps the contravention alive, day by day.
This issue of ‘continuing offence’ is not restricted only to Indian Territory but outside as well.
A case of continued crime is illustrated in the case of People v De Leon G.R. Nos. 25375 & 25376, wherein one of the issues involved is whether or not the accused, with intent to gain on the same occasion and in the same place, took roosters belonging to two different owners constitutes two crimes of theft.
While answering to this issue, Supreme Court of Philippine was of the opinion that the unity of the intention to take a thing belonging to another on one occasion and in the same place, constitutes the commission of only one crime of theft; and the fact that the things taken belong to different persons does not produce a multiplicity of crimes, which must be punished separately.
CONCLUSION
In view of the above, it is concluded that our Judicial Officers have made various successful endeavors in clarifying the concept of “continuing offence” amongst litigants and lawyers. But, so far as considering more clarification in respect to this aforesaid issue, legislation should work upon this andtry to bring harmony between legislature and judiciary. Generally, the punishment in Continuing offence is more severe than the punishment in Instantaneous Offence depending upon the very nature of the offence along with facts and circumstances of each case.