State of Bihar v. Deokaran Nenshi (1971):

The Supreme Court defined a ‘continuing offence’ as one which is susceptible of continuance and is an offence which is committed over a period of time. It distinguished it from an offence which is committed once and for all but whose effects continue.

Bhagirath Kanoria v. State of M.P. (1984):

The Supreme Court clarified that a continuing offence means an offence which continues and is not an offence which has been completed once and for all. It emphasized that if the wrongful act or omission persists, a fresh period of limitation arises, crucial for acts like non-deposit of provident fund.

Udai Shankar Awasthi v. State of UP (2013):

This judgment reiterated that for an offence to be considered continuing, the unlawful act or omission itself must persist or recur over time, and not merely its consequences. This principle ensures that the period of limitation does not defeat justice in cases of ongoing non-compliance with legal duties.