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 grounds 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 & the learned Magistrate was not competent to take cognizance of the offences alleged in the complaint. Other grounds challenging the competence of the maintainability of the complaint were also raised. All these objections were over-ruled both by the trial Court as well as by the revisional Court by the impugned orders. Held: Sub-section (2) of section 15 of the Act reads as under ; "15. Cognizance of offence 1. x x x x 2. No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act except under complaint made by the Registrar or any other person, authorised in writing by him, in this behalf." 2. From the aforesaid provision, it would be clear that there is a bar for cognizance of an offence punishable under this Act to taken by the Court specified in sub-section (1) of section 15 unless there is a complaint either by the Registrar or by any other person authorised in writing by him in this behalf. It is not disputed that the Registrar has authorised the complainant for filing a complaint. It is, however, urged that in this authorisation, filed at serial No.5 with the annexures filed with the complaint. It is not disputed that the Registrar has authorised the complainant for filing a complaint. It is, however, urged that in this authorisation, filed at serial No.5 with the annexures filed with the complaint. there is neither mention of the person against whom the complaint is to be filed, nor is there any mention as to in respect of which particular act of omission of commission the complaint is to be filed nor is there any indication as to for what particular offence the said complaint is to be filed nor the necessary particulars have been given to enable the Court to take cognizance of the offence under the Act. All these contentions, in my opinion, are untenable. 3. Sub-section (2) of section 15 of the Act as reproduced above only says that 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 authorisation, 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. Revision dismissed.