JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of criminal revisions Nos. 243/83 (Vijay kumar vs. State) and 244/83 (Vijay kumar vs. State ). ( 2. ) CIRCUMSTANCES giving rise to these revisions are these :-According to the prosecution the petitioner is a colonizer. He has diverted agricultural land from three different survey numbers situate at Ratlam for residential purposes without obtaining requisite legal sanction and has also sold some plots. He has thereby committed offences under section 27 read with section 26 of the M. P. Vinirdishta Bhrashta Acharan Nivaran Adhiniyam, 1982 (for short the Adhiniyam)and also under section 420 Indian Penal Code. The Adhiniyam came into force with effect from 13-10-1982. ( 3. ) IT was on the foundation of the letter dated 13-4-1984 from the Collectorate ratlam to the Police that the first information reports leading to the challans against the petitioner were recorded. ( 4. ) AFTER the presentation of the challans the learned Magistrate, as provided under section 41 of the Adhiniyam committed the cases to the Court of Session ratlam. ( 5. ) BY the impugned orders, the Court of Session framed charges only in respect of offence under the Adhiniyam in all the three cases. ( 6. ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the investigations by the police were illegal in the absence of any direction by the Revenue commissioner, Ujjain for investigation of the offence by the police as required under section 39 of the Adhiniyam and the Court of Session erred in taking cognizance of the alleged offences on such investigation. ( 7. ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the non-applicant is that the revenue Commissioner was in full knowledge of the investigation and in fact his letter dt. 12-4-1983 is at the root of the prosecution and there is no illegality in the investigation. ( 8. ) THE point for consideration is whether the revision petitions deserve to be allowed. ( 9. ) THE material portion of section 39 of the Adhiniyam which falls for consideration provides as under : - 39. 12-4-1983 is at the root of the prosecution and there is no illegality in the investigation. ( 8. ) THE point for consideration is whether the revision petitions deserve to be allowed. ( 9. ) THE material portion of section 39 of the Adhiniyam which falls for consideration provides as under : - 39. Cognizance of offence - All offences under this Court shall be cognizable : provided firstly that no court shall take cognizance of and no police officer shall register a case, inquire into or investigate an offence under this Act against any person unless directed by the State Government or such officer or authority, as it may by notification specify : provided secondly that if on receiving an information of the commission of an offence under this Act an officer specified under this section apprehends that delay may result in disappearance of material of evidence, he may forthwith direct an Executive Magistrate sub-ordinate to him to proceed to collect the evidence or ensure against disappearance of the facts relating thereto and facts shall forthwith be reported by such Executive Magistrate to the Committing Magistrate having jurisdiction and also to the officer specified under this section. ( 10. ) IT is not in dispute that under the relevant notification in respect of private individuals the Revenue Commissioner is the prescribed authority under section 39 of the Adhiniyam. ( 11. ) FROM the provision extracted above, it is clear that before a police officer gets jurisdiction to investigate an offence under the Adhiniyam or the Act requisite direct ion has to emanate from the Government or the concerned officer or authority. ( 12. ) PRIOR to the Adhiniyam the connected Ordinance was in force. The decision in Harishankar Goyals case 1984 MPLLJ 234 = 1984 JLJ 324 , relates to the provisions in the repealed Ordinance corresponding to section 39 of the Adhiniyam. ( 13. ) ON the analogy of the decision in Daulatrams case AIR 1962 SC 1206 wherein with reference to section 195 of the repealed Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 it was held that unauthorised prosecution was illegal and void ab initio, the bar under the section being absolute, it has been held in Harishankars case (supra) that the prosecution was, illegal and void ab initio. ( 14. ( 14. ) IT is true that illegality of an investigation, unless it results in prejudice to the accused is not by itself sufficient to invalidate the trial. In the instant case, the objection as to the illegality of the prosecution has been raised at the earliest stage before commencement of the trial and, therefore, has to be considered in the context of the stage of the case. ( 15. ) ON a perusal of the letter by the Revenue Commissioner it is found that it is addressed to the Collector and not to the police. I find nothing therein from which it may be held that there is any direction to the police for investigation. In fact the police officer without reporting to the prescribed authority for requisite direction under section 39 of the Adhiniyam has launched the prosecution in question. There is nothing to indicate that the Revenue Commissioner in fact proceeded under the second proviso to section 39 of the Adhiniyam. Assuming that he did so, the Collector or the District Magistrate did not report the matter to the Committing Magistrate or to the Revenue Commissioner as required by the aforesaid provision. ( 16. ) FROM the foregoing discussion, it is clear that the investigation being illegal, the resultant prosecutions of the petitioner are void ab initio. ( 17. ) FROM paragraph 13 of the decision in Baikunthanaths case 1985 (1) Cr. L. J. 563 it is clear that in trial which is void ab initio the proper order to be passed is one of discharge and not of acquittal. The prosecution is thereby left free to launch a fresh prosecution if so advised after complying with the requirements of the law. ( 18. ) IN the decision in State (S. P. E) Hyderabad vs. Kailash AIR 1980 SC 522 the a. P. High Court allowing the revisional application had quashed the proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for want of sanction of competent authority holding that the prosecution was invalid. The Supreme Court had maintained the judgment of the High Court. ( 19. ) IN the result the revision petitions (Nos. 242/83, 243/83 and 244/83) are allowed. The impugned orders are set aside and the proceedings against the petitioner are quashed. Revision petitions allowed.