JUDGMENT Malik, J. - Firm Muzaffar Husain Mahmud Hasan was licensed to carry on retail sale of cloth in Ghazipur. On the 6th of May 1944 Ali Ahmad, an employee of the firm, sold eleven yards of malmal at the rate of ten annas per yard to on Bikram Singh instead of at six anna six pies, the control rate. Bikram Singh complained to the Piece Goods Inspector who made a report to the District Magistrate and a case was starte I against Muziffer Hasim, son of Mihunmid Mustafa, and Mahmud Hasan, s on of Ahmad Majtaba in whose names the harm was registered. The other two accused were Ahmad Mujtaba who was said to be the person actually in charge of the business as its manager and Ali Ahmad, the shop assistant, who had sold the malmal. Muzaffar Husain and Mahmud Hasan have been acquitted on the ground that they were students at Aligarh and were not present at the time when the cloth was sold, Ahmad Mujtaba and Ali Ahmad have, however, been convicted. This revision has been field only on behalf of Ahmad Mujtaba. 2. Three points have been raised on behalf of Ahmad Mujataba, firstly, it is said that he was the manager of the firm and, as such, he could not be convicted under the Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control Order, 1943, as it is only the manufacturer or the dealer who is made liable. Under rule 121 of the Defence of India Rules, however, an abettor has also been made punishable and, to my mind, it is not enough to say on behalf of Ahmad Mujtaba that he is neither the manufacturer nor the dealer and does not come u/s 12, clause (1) of the Order. 3. The next point is that the sanction, if any, was to prosecute the firm Muzaffar Husain Mahmud Haan and there was no sanction to prosecute Ahmad Mujtaba, I have already held in several cases that the provisions of rule 23 must be strictly complied with and before a Magistrate can have any jurisdiction to entertain a case for the contravention of the Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control Order there must be a previous sanction for the prosecution obtained from the Provincial Government. In the view that I have taken of the next point, urged before me, it is not necessary for me in this case to go into the question whether the sanction to prosecute firm Muzaffar Husain Mahmud Hasan could justify the prosecution of Ahmad Mujtaba, who was only the manager of the firm. 4. The next point urged by Learned Counsel is that no such sanction as required by Section 23 of the Cotton Cloth and Yarn Control Order has been proved Going through the record I find that the paper filed in proof of the sanction is almost similar to the paper filed in the case of Harish Chandra Bagla 1945 A W R (HC) 160. It is a carbon copy of G.O. No. B-5852/CS, dated May 31, 1944. It does not bear the signature of any body. There is an initial at the bottom of someone that it is a true copy and that appears to be of someone in the office of the D. S. O. Which, I understand, means the District Supply Officer, and is dated the 7th of June 1944 No evidence whatsoever was given to prove the sanction and this carbon copy was liken to prove itself. I have already pointed out n a previous case that a carbon copy of this nature cannot be treated as a duly certified copy and does not prove itself and is not admissible in evidence. In case the original sanction is filed that would be a public document and it would be admissible as such. If the document filed is the certified copy of a public document such a certified copy should be issued by a public officer having the custody of the public document and must be dated and subscribed by him with his name and his official title. If a copy of a public document is duly certified, it may again be possible for the courts to dispense with proof and admit it into evidence and presume the genuineness of the certified copy u/s 79 or any other relevant section of the Indian Evidence Act. If neither the original, nor a duly certified copy is filed, then it is necessary for the prosecution to prove the sanction in the ordinary m inner prescribed by law. If neither the original, nor a duly certified copy is filed, then it is necessary for the prosecution to prove the sanction in the ordinary m inner prescribed by law. The paper filed in this case is neither the original sanction, nor is it a duly certified copy about which there can be any presumption under the Indian Evidence Act, I am surprised that in case after case papers are admitted into evidence, simply because they come from some Government office or other, without the Magistrates, seized of the case, taking any care to see that they are proved according to law; with the result that the prosecution ultimately fails, when it comes to higher Courts. In view of the fact that it is not proved that there was any sanction for the prosecution obtained from the Provincial Government it must be held that the prosecution was illegal and the conviction and sentence must be set aside 5. I allow this revision, set aside the conviction and the sentence of Ahmad Mujtaba and direct that the fine, if realised, be refunded. This order will also govern the case of Ali Ahmad and the fine, if paid by him, shall also be refunded.