JUDGMENT M.P. Saxena, J. - Fakhruddin has filed this revision application against the judgment and order dated 30-11-1977 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, dismissing his appeal and confirming his conviction u/s 9 of the U.P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act 1958 and a fine of Rs. 1000/-awarded thereunder. In default of payment of fine he was sentenced to six months S.I. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this revision application are that on 28-9-1973 Sri Moti Lal Goel, Junior Engineer, visited Railway Road Bajraia in the town of Ghaziabad and found that two masons and four labourers were raising new constructions. On enquiry they gave out that the revisionist was getting a shop constructed. The revisionist was not present at that time. The Junior Engineer prepared a memo and a site plan of the constructions in dispute. One more memo was prepared on the spot and all these papers were submitted in the office of the Prescribed Authority, Regulated Area, Ghaziabad. After perusing them Sri Mahabir Singh issued a show cause notice to the revisionist on 1-10-1973. This notice was signed by Sri Mahabir Singh as Prescribed Authority. On 7/8-11-1973 the revisionist appeared in the office of the Prescribed Authority and filed a reply stating that he had not raised any new construction but he was getting only the old construction replastered. He also gave out that he was having the kuchcha floor converted into a pucca one. On 8-2-1974 Sri Mahabir Singh who was officer on special duty in the office of the Prescribed Authority, Regulated Area, Ghaziabad, filed a complaint against the revisionist. 3. In the trial court again the revisionist pleaded that he was not raising any new construction but was getting the old one replastered. The legality of the prosecution was also challenged on the ground that there was no sanction to prosecute. 4. After going through the material on the record the learned trial court negatived both the contentions of the revisionist and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. 5. The revisionist filed an appeal and reiterated the same contentions but unsuccessfully. The learned lower appellate court held that where power to prosecute and the power to grant sanction vest in the same person the launching of prosecution impliedly (sic)ans that sanction has also been recorded. 5. The revisionist filed an appeal and reiterated the same contentions but unsuccessfully. The learned lower appellate court held that where power to prosecute and the power to grant sanction vest in the same person the launching of prosecution impliedly (sic)ans that sanction has also been recorded. In the instant case the officer on special duty having both the powers it was not necessary for him to first accord sanction and then to launch prosecution. It is against this order that the present revision application has been filed. 6. The Learned Counsel for the revisionist has reiterated the same two points. So far as the first point is concerned, both the learned lower courts have decided that the revisionist was raising a new construction and was not plastering any old construction. It being a finding of fact cannot be disturbed in revision and more so when it is based on proper appraisement of evidence on the record. 7. So far as the second point is concerned, it is based on Section 12(1) of the U.P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958, which will hereafter be referred to as the Act. It says: No prosecution for any offence punishable under this Act shall be instituted except with the previous sanction of the Prescribed Authority. Admittedly there is no written sanction on the record. But the question for consideration is whether in the circumstances of this case the requirements of Section 12 will be deemed to have been complied with. The expression "Prescribed Authority" has been defined in Section 2(g) of the Act as follows: Prescribed Authority means a person or body of persons appointed as such by the State Government in respect of a regulated area by notification in the official gazette." There is no controversy that Sri B.K. Tandon was appointed as Prescribed Authority of the regulated area, Ghaziabad, by the State Government by notification in the official gazette. u/s 12 the sanction to prosecute could ordinarily be given by Sri B.K. Tandon but Section 8-A of the Act lays down: The Prescribed Authority, may after obtaining the sanction of the State Government, delegate all or any of its powers and functions to an officer or authority subordinate to it." In pursuance of this provisions Sri B.K. Tandon delegated the following powers to Sri Mahabir Singh, Officer on Special Duty in the office of the Prescribed Authority, regulated area, Ghaziabad with effect from 28-5-1971. 1. To receive all applications mentioned in Section 7(1) of the said Act. 2. To give or refuse permission u/s 7(2) and communicate such grant or refusal u/s 7(3). 3. To institute or defend any legal proceedings u/s 8-B. (4) To withdraw any legal proceedings under the Act and to compound any offence under this Act or under a Regulation made or direction issued thereunder ; to admit compromise or withdraw any claim made under this Act in accordance with the provisions of Section 8-B(2). 5. To pass orders of demolition u/s 10 of this Act. 6. To pass orders u/s 12 sanctioning prosecution for any offence punishable under this Act. 7. To cancel permission regarding construction of building and development of sites obtained under fraud u/s 7-A of the U.P.R.B.O. Act." The said order is Ex. Ka-6 and it makes it clear that the sanction to delegate powers was obtained from the Government by means of D.O. No. 685/37-33 (GZB)/ 65 dated February 13, 1968. 8. Section 8-B as it stood before its deletion in 1976, read as follows: (1) The Prescribed Authority may institute or defend any legal proceedings under this Act. (2) The Prescribed Authority shall not except with the prior approval of the Controlling Authority and shall, when so required by the Controlling Authority, (a) Withdraw any legal proceedings under this Act; (b) Compound any offence under this Act or under a regulation made or direction issued thereunder and ; (c) admit, compromise or withdraw any claim made under this Act. This provision makes it clear that before its deletion the Prescribed Authority was competent to institute or defend any legal proceeding under this Act. Its deletion in 1976 in my judgment was prospective and not retrospective because if it is construed to be retrospective all prosecutions launched by the Prescribed Authority before its deletion would be rendered illegal. This provision makes it clear that before its deletion the Prescribed Authority was competent to institute or defend any legal proceeding under this Act. Its deletion in 1976 in my judgment was prospective and not retrospective because if it is construed to be retrospective all prosecutions launched by the Prescribed Authority before its deletion would be rendered illegal. It is thus clear that one of the functions of the Prescribed Authority in 1973 when the present case arose, was to institute or defend any legal proceedings under the Act, This power he had specifically delegated in the prescribed manner as mentioned above. The Prescribed Authority has also the power to sanction prosecution u/s 12 and it was also delegated by means of the same order to the same person, namely, Sri Mahabir Singh. In this manner both the powers, i.e. the power to institute legal proceedings and the power to accord sanction, vested in Sri Mahabir Singh. When both the powers were vested in him institution of legal proceedings meant that he sanctioned the prosecution though not in writing. The purpose of granting sanction is to safeguard the interests of the person against whom it is proposed to initiate legal proceedings. A prescribed authority is required to examine all the papers and after applying his mind decide whether prosecution should be launched or not. When Sri Mahabir Singh filed the complaint (Ex. Ka-5) incorporating all the facts constituting an offence, he will be deemed to have done so only when he was satisfied that it was a fit case to do so. It implied sanction to prosecute. It would have been unnecessary if he had first granted sanction to prosecute and then instituted legal proceedings. It may have been necessary if any remedy against mere granting of sanction was provided in the Act. The validity of sanction is always considered when it comes before the Courts. Therefore, the learned lower appellate court was right in holding that when a person who is supposed to sanction prosecution of another person himself prosecutes him by filing a complaint it amounts to according sanction of prosecution of that person and (sic) formal order of sanction is required these circumstances. The Learned Counsel for the revisionists has vehemently contended that Section 12 of the Act contemplates previous sanction which means that it should be anterior to the filing of the complaint. The Learned Counsel for the revisionists has vehemently contended that Section 12 of the Act contemplates previous sanction which means that it should be anterior to the filing of the complaint. In the instant case there is nothing to show that the officer on special duty had decided to launch the prosecution before filing the complaint. I find no force in this contention because the complaint must have been filed after the officer on special duty had applied his mind to all the facts and decided that prosecution should be launched. At first he had served a notice on the revisionist requiring him to show cause. The revisionist had filed his reply to that notice and the complaint must have been filed after the officer on special duty had applied his mind to all the facts and decided that it was a fit case for launching prosecution. 9. Another contention of the Learned Counsel for the revisionist is that where special statutory powers are conferred and specific provision is made in the statute as to the manner in which the powers are to be exercised they should be exercised by the authority and in the manner specified in the satuate and in strict conformity with the provisions thereof. In this connection reliance is placed on the case of AIR 1943 75 (Federal Court) and AIR 1945 16 (Federal Court) . There can be no controversy about this principle but the question for consideration is whether in the instant case the powers were exercised strictly in the manner prescribed. Section 12 no doubt requires prosecution to be launched with the previous sanction of the Prescribed Authority. Where the Prescribed Authority validly delegated this power as well as the power to institute legal proceeding under the Act to one person, namely, Sri Mahabir Singh, the institution of the proceeding itself will imply granting of sanction to prosecute. Hence there was substantial compliance of the provision. The Learned Counsel for the revisionist has also alluded to the case of Parmanand Dass Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 1745 , but in my judgment the facts of that case were entirely different and it provides no guidance for the instant case. For all these reasons the revisionists' prosecution was perfectly legal and does not suffer from any illegality. The sentence awarded does not err on the side of severity. 10. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 1745 , but in my judgment the facts of that case were entirely different and it provides no guidance for the instant case. For all these reasons the revisionists' prosecution was perfectly legal and does not suffer from any illegality. The sentence awarded does not err on the side of severity. 10. Therefore, the revisionists application is dismissed and the (judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, is confirmed.