JUDGMENT Imam, J. - This was a Rule calling on the District Magistrate of Nadia to show cause why the sanction to prosecute the, petitioner for disobedience of the order passed by the Subdivisional Officer should not be set aside on the ground that the order complained of is neither a sanction u/s 195 nor a direction to prosecute u/s 476 of the Criminal. Procedure Code. 2. We find no substance in this Rule. The order was clearly made u/s 195, Clause (a) of the Criminal procedure Code. It is pressed on us that a sanction u/s 195(a) cannot be good without an application made on behalf of somebody for sanction to be granted. It is admitted that the sanction was given by the Magistrate on a police report, setting forth the facts of the disobedience of the order and also containing a request that the petitioner should be prosecuted u/s 188 of the Indian Penal Code. We see in the report a sufficient application for the purposes of the law to justify the Magistrate in giving the sanction u/s 195, if an application were needed at all. We, therefore, discharge the Rule. 3. The due promulgation of the order, in respect of which the disobedience is alleged, is disputed by the petitioner. We express no opinion on the point, but leave it to the Magistrate who will try the case to decide it. Chapman, J. 4. I agree; but desire to add that, in so far as the provisions contained in Section 195(7)(a) are concerned, I do not see the necessity of any application for sanction. The cases in which it has been said that a Court acting u/s 195(1)(6) ought not to proceed except upon an application, are no authority for saying that an application is necessary in cases which come u/s 195(2)(a).