Short Note : 1. The applicant is an office bearer of a Society registered under the name "Mool Adiwasi Samaj Sangh" under the M.P. Societies Registration Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Registrar of the Societies had got the accounts of this society audited and since it was found that there were cases of falsification of accounts, misappropriation of the society's funds etc. Therefore, he under sub-section (2) of section 15 of the Act authorised the complainant-Shri K.D. Nagpure, Assistant Registrar to file a complaint in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Thandla for offences specified in section 22 of the Act and different sections of the Indian Penal Code. After the applicant appeared as an accused in response to the process issued against him in the complaint filed against him by K.D. Nagpure he raised a number of objections with regard to the maintainability of the complaint. One of the ground raised by the applicant was that the authorisation made by the Registrar under sub-section (2) of section 15 of the Act was invalid, inasmuch as it did not comply with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 15 of the Act and the learned Magistrate was not competent to take cognizance of the offences alleged in the complaint. Held: Sub-section (2) of section 15 of the Act as reproduced above only says shat to enable the Court to take cognizance of an offence punishable under the Act (viz section 22 in this case) an authorisation by the Registrar is necessary. In the said authorisation dated 23-4-1971, the Registrar has authorised. Shri K.D. Nagpure, Assistant Registrar, CO-operative Societies to file a complaint against the office bearers, members or employees of the aforesaid Society under the Act. No doubt this authorisation does not indicate as to against whom the complaint has to be filed and for what particular offence but it is mentioned that the said authorisation is to be given under section (2) of section 15 of the Act. This authorization, therefore, in my opinion, is sufficient to enable the present authorised to file a complaint in respect of such matters which have come to light during the audit of the accounts of the Society. 2. This authorization, therefore, in my opinion, is sufficient to enable the present authorised to file a complaint in respect of such matters which have come to light during the audit of the accounts of the Society. 2. This is not a case where sanction to prosecute a particular person for a particular offence is required before a Court has any jurisdiction to take cognizance of any particular case against any particular person. Had that been so, the grievance made by the applicant could have prevailed but, in my opinion, the authorization in this case does not suffer from the defect urged by the learned counsel for the applicant. Revision dismissed.