We must, therefore, proceed on the basis that the failure to remove the encroachment having occurred on the expiry of December 20, limitation began to run for the purpose of S. 533 on that and not on any earlier date. The only question which then requires examination is whether the pro.secution which was filed on June 19, 1968, was instituted as required by S. 533, "within six months next after the commission" of the offence. An argument was raised in the High Court that "six months" must be construed to mean 180 days and not six calendar months, The High Court does not appear to have accepted that submission. There the J:!igh Court is right, because S. 3(27) of the Bengal General Clauses Act, I of 1899, defines "3'1'1onth" to mean a month reckon(jd according to the British calendar. The expression "six months" which occurs in S. 533 of the Act must accordingly be cons~rued to mean six calendar months and not 180 days. The offence, being a11leged to have been committed on the expiry of December 20, 1967, and the prosecution having been instituted on June 19, 1968, the provisions of S. 533 must be held to have been duly complied with.
