Sumanth Nookala (Lawyer) 14 November 2012

Continuing offence

FIR under Sec 174 A IPC as the accused failed to appear inspite of proclamation under 82Cr.P.C. However, proclamation was issued and accused declared proclaimed offender before 23-6-2006 amendment introducing section 174-A. Ex post fact law and hence violation of Art.20 could be the argument but is Sec174 A a continuing offence?

1965 and 1984 Supreme Court said that continuing offence has to be inferred from the language of the statute and purpose....language of 174A no doubt says failing to appear on the specified date but would that suffice to say that 174A is not a continuing offence?

Any discussion, case law is welcome...

Reply Follow

2 Replies

Adv.R.P.Chugh (Advocate/Legal Consultant (rpchughadvocatesupremecourt@hotmail.com)) 14 November 2012

Very Interesting ! Without having read or researched this aspect of law - but on pure reason and logic I feel it would be given a retrospective effect in light of it's nature/purpose. Fleeing from the law & avoiding a proclamation always used to attract penal consequences for eg : arrest without warrant anywhere in India/attachment of property. It always has been a contravention and illegal, it's just that it is made an offence it itself now further disincentivising and creating a deterrent effect. It was never legitimate, hence a retrospective interpretation shall serve the purpose of the act.

Sumanth Nookala (Lawyer) 17 November 2012

ya bharat, but the issue is not of retrospectivity. Once an offence is held to be continuous, you are engulfed by the penal law in its prospective application as you continue to commit the act which became an offence due to the new law!