JUDGMENT Krishnan, J. This is an appeal on special leave u/s 417(3). Criminal Procedure Code, by the complainant the authorised officer of the Indore Improvement Trust which is a local authority, in exercise, with regard to the authorisation and control of new constructions, of the powers of the municipality under the Madhya Bharat Municipalities Act, 1954 in the parts of Indore city which are under its jurisdiction. Otherwise a simple one, this case brings out firstly the importance of the Courts understanding the essence of a criminal offence, as distinct from the naming of a particular structure or building; and secondly the occasions on which the burden of proving a particular fact may shift to the accused, of course, after the prosecution discharges its initial burden. The common ground in this ease is that the accused-respondents were building a house within the jurisdiction of the Trust and applied for sanction in the usual manner. As usual map or plan of the proposed structure was sent in duplicate or triplicate for sanction, the Trust gave its sanction with a modification, which is in fact a central issue in this case, and after retaining one of the copies of the map or plan, returned the remaining copy or copies to the applicants after indicating on them the portion of the proposed structure which had not been "authorised". What, that portion is, will be discussed presently. The accused, however, went ahead with their construction and put up the structure fully as they had originally proposed, ignoring the refusal for the portion that was clearly demarcated on the map. The Trust noticed them to remove this unauthorised structure calling it part of a "gallery". As the respondents refused to remove it, the Trust directed its Engineer to file a complaint u/s 112 (7) of the Municipalities Act. Out of the several grounds raised by the respondents we are at present concerned only with two. Firstly, the notice issued was for the removal of the part of the gallery at the back of the house over a length of 7 feet. But there was no gallery, there being only certain slabs laid down and some bars fixed up. Out of the several grounds raised by the respondents we are at present concerned only with two. Firstly, the notice issued was for the removal of the part of the gallery at the back of the house over a length of 7 feet. But there was no gallery, there being only certain slabs laid down and some bars fixed up. The Trust had urged that while giving sanction for the construction of the building, they had refused it in respect of 7 feet length of the proposed gallery on the back side on the extreme left, and had demarcated it in the maps returned to the applicants as well as in the copy of the map which they had retained and had made the appropriate note in this regard in all the copies. They produced theirs which shows this demarcation and refused, beyond any doubt. The respondents did not produce the copy which was sent along with the sanction and was in fact part of the sanction; according to them, the burden of proof lay on the prosecution and there was no prayer by the complainant that they should produce any map or plan. After rejecting the other grounds urged by the complainant, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused because there was no gallery such as had been mentioned in the complainant's notice, and there was nothing in the evidence to indicate that in the sanction accorded to the accused, permission for construction of this portion had been refused. It is surprising that the learned Magistrate should have accepted these arguments which are patently absurd. The relevant part of section 112 of the Municipalities Act is this : (1) Before beginning to erect any building,...the person intending so to build...shall give to the municipal council notice thereof in writing and aha furnish to them at the same time if required by a bye-law or by special order to do so a plan showing..... (2) Save as otherwise provided in this Act or the rules and bye-laws thereunder, the municipal council may either give permission to erect...or may impose in writing such conditions.... (2) Save as otherwise provided in this Act or the rules and bye-laws thereunder, the municipal council may either give permission to erect...or may impose in writing such conditions.... (7) Whoever begins any construction............in any manner contrary to, such legal orders of the Municipal Council as may be issued under this section or in any other respect contrary to the provisions of this Act...shall be punished with a fine which may extend to one thousand rupees; and in the case of a continuing contravention of any of the aforesaid provisions be shall be liable to an additional fine...for each day during which such contravention continues after conviction. The municipal council may itself demolish the unauthorised construction but this can be done only after conviction. In the instant case the refusal in respect of the part of the gallery on the back side, was in accordance with a rule of safety that no construction should be allowed within a prescribed distance from any pillar carrying electric lines. The point to note is that this section is concerned with unauthorised construction of any kind whatsoever. The question is not whether the unauthorised construction is a gallery or spread of cement slabs with some bars around them, but whether it was a construction. If the structure had been completed it would certainly have been a gallery, being in fact a continuation of the 23 feet gallery upto a length of 30 feet. The notice was issued when the accused were actually constructing it and had on that date only spread the slabs and struck the bars and had not completed the work. The learned Magistrate, however, allowed evidence and cross-examination on the question whether what was there at the time of the notice was a "gallery" or something different. Since, he thought, it was not, at any rate not till then, a "gallery", he held that the charge had not been proved. Whether we call it a gallery or the preparation for gallery, is only a way of speaking. It is a construction no doubt; and every construction, which is not covered by authority, is an offence under this section. Nor did the accused have least doubt of uncertainty about what construction was meant. It was the 7 feet strip at the extreme end of the back gallery noted on their plan submitted for sanction but deleted and refused by the authority. Nor did the accused have least doubt of uncertainty about what construction was meant. It was the 7 feet strip at the extreme end of the back gallery noted on their plan submitted for sanction but deleted and refused by the authority. Absurd as the learned Magistrate's finding is on the first question, his argument in regard to the second is even more perverse. The complainant's case was that sanction has been refused for this atrip and this refusal was noted in all the copies of the plan submitted by the respondent. He produced (Exh. P-3) the copy preserved in the office of the Trust. Certainly the complainant had to prove his case and has proved it by the production of the documents, in particular his copy of the orders which includes the map or plan. It is theoretically conceivable that a deletion or qualification noted in the copy retained in the office of the Trust had not been, because of somebody's mistake, made in the copy sent to the applicant for permission. In that event the applicant could not know and a prosecution in respect of such deletion or qualification should fail. But then it is for the accused to show that whatever might be written in the map or copy in the office of the Trust, the sanction sent to them is unqualified and includes the construction of this portion also. If they fail to do so, the evidence of the local authority will have to be accepted unless the Magistrate finds that these documents are forgeries. It is not clear what more the learned Magistrate was expecting. A public authority which sends out a sanction can only produce the office copy, while the sanction properly so called is always with applicant for it; if it is his case that the copies do not tally, and those produced by the local authority are not correct he should produce his copies. He cannot withhold them and still assert that the sanction proper is not forthcoming. This is exactly what the present respondents have been doing, and have been allowed to get away with. If they fail to produce the sanction with them the Court Should proceed on the basis of the copy prepared by and retained with the local authority in due course of its official business. Ail this is quite obvious. This is exactly what the present respondents have been doing, and have been allowed to get away with. If they fail to produce the sanction with them the Court Should proceed on the basis of the copy prepared by and retained with the local authority in due course of its official business. Ail this is quite obvious. There was no occasion for either the complainant or the Court itself calling upon the accused to produce the sanction with him; it was entirely for them either to accept correctness of the copy produced by the local authority, or to show that it was Incorrect, by producing their own. Actually the respondents' own copy has been produced during the hearing in this Court; we find that the strip concerned has been demarcated and refused on that plan exactly in the same unambiguous manner as in the copy retained by the Trust and produced at Exh. P-3 in the Court. We would accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of Acquittal recorded by the learned Magistrate and convict the respondents under lection 112 (7) and sentence them each to a fine of Rs. 100 with imprisonment in default for three weeks. S.B. Sen, J. I agree. Final Result : Allowed