Judgment Bhuvaneshwar Prasad, J. 1. This is an application under Sec.482 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called thecode. It is directed against the order dated 4-9-1982 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, mctihari, in Suit No.61-OC/82 taking cognizance of the offence under Section 52 of the Bihar Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1981 (Bihar act 37/82 (hereinafter called the act against the present petitioners. Petitioner no.1 is one of the Directors of M/s. Sugauli Sugar Works Limited ; petitioner no.2 is the Welfare Officer-cum-Works Manager and petitioner No.3 is the manager of M/s Sugauli Sugar Works Limited which is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. 2. It appears that the Cane Officer, Motihari (Opposite party No.2) had filed a prosecution report, dated 5-7-1982 against the present petitioners before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari. In this prosecution report the cane Officer alleged that M/s. Sugauli Sugar Works had set up several weigh bridge for purchase of sugarcane supplied to it. On 29-3-1982 "the Joint Cane commissioner held a spot inquiry and verified the weighment of cane carts by the employees of M/s. Sugauli Sugar Works Limited and the receipts issued to the suppliers. On inquiry it was found that Receipt No.44163, dated 29-3-1982 for 15.90 quintals was issued to one Harihar Rai. On the proper weighment the cart was found to be having only 16.20 quintals of sugarcane. Thus a deficiency of 30 kilograms was detected. Accordingly, he submitted a prosecution report under Sec.52 of the Act for contravention of Sec.39 of the Act. On the receipt of this report, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari took cognizance of the offence. 3. In this petition, apart from other grounds, it was submitted that Section 53 of the Act lays down that no prosecution shall be instituted except on the complaint made in writing by an officer authorised in this behalf by the State government. The prosecution report, however, shows that it was submitted by the Cane Officer and was only accepted by the Cane Commissioner. This is not in terms of the Notification No. B 5-012/69 C-1759, Patna, dated the 28th August, 1983 issued by the State Government. 4. The only point for decision before me is whether this petition is fit to be allowed or not. 5. On behalf of opposite party No.1 counter-affidavit has been filed. This is not in terms of the Notification No. B 5-012/69 C-1759, Patna, dated the 28th August, 1983 issued by the State Government. 4. The only point for decision before me is whether this petition is fit to be allowed or not. 5. On behalf of opposite party No.1 counter-affidavit has been filed. In this counter affidavit it has been contended that there,was the deficiency of 8 kg. in weighment and, therefore, the offence was clearly made out against the petitioners. It has further been contended that though Shri M. N.-Ojha was nominated under Sec.25 of the Act, this nomination was improper and invalid under the provision of this Act. It was further contended that since the cart was found to be under-weighed the prosecution was justified. 6. At the time of the hearing Mr. Farooque Ahmad Khan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has mainly relied on only one ground and has submitted that the cognizance in this case is bad inasmuch as the complaint petition was not filed in the proper way by a competent authority. In this connection, he has drawn my attention to Sec.53 of the Act which provides for the institution of the proceeding. It lays down that no prosecution under this Act shall be instituted except upon a complaint made in writing by any officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government. 7. In this connection, my attention has been drawn to Notification No. B 5-012/69-C-1759, Patna dated 28-8-1973 issued by the State Government. From this notification it would appear that four classes of officers were authorised to file the complaint petition under the Act. Under serial No.4 all the Cane officer of Bihar have been included. There is, however, a proviso after serial no.4 which runs as follows : "provided a cane officer will exercise this power with the prior approval of the Cane Commissioner of Bihar. " 8. Mr. Khan has submitted that in the present case though the prosecution report was filed by the Cane officer no prior approval of the Cane Commis sioner was taken. Accordingly, it was the submission of the learned counsel that the prosecution report is bad in law and, therefore, no cognizance against the petitioners could have been taken. " 8. Mr. Khan has submitted that in the present case though the prosecution report was filed by the Cane officer no prior approval of the Cane Commis sioner was taken. Accordingly, it was the submission of the learned counsel that the prosecution report is bad in law and, therefore, no cognizance against the petitioners could have been taken. It may not be out of place to mention here that from the prosecution report (Annexure-2) it would appear that it was the Joint Cane Commissioner, Shri Deo Narain Choudhary, who had verified the weighment of the sugarcane at the spot. It was in his presence that the shortage was detected. The Notification issued under Sec.53 of the Act sho. vs that the prior approval of the Cane Commissioner was only required to be obtained so far as the filing of the complaint petition by the Cane Officer ic concerned. If the offence was detected in the presence of the Commissioner it does not stand to reason why he himself did not file the complaint petition. It is, however, for the Department concerned to take a decision who will file the complaint petition. 9. So far as the complaint petition (Annexure-2) is concerned it appears to have been filed by the Cane Officer, Motihari though the Joint Cane Commis-sioner figures as witness No.1. The question that now arises for consideration is, whether before filing of this complaint petition the Cane Officer, Motihari had obtained the prior approval of the Cane Commissioner or not in terms of the notification mentioned above. My attention has been drawn to an endorsement made in column No.9 of the complaint petition by the Cane Commissioner which simply shows "approved". Column No.7 relates to other evidence. In its concluding portion a request has been made that before starting the proceed ing the same may be approved in terms of Sec.52 of the Act. Column No.9 shows the order passed by the Cane Commissioner. In it only one word has been used namely, "fgftfffa" 10. Shri Khan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has challenged this order on two grounds. Firstly, he has contended that this is not a speaking order and, therefore, it does not carry any weight in the eyes of law. In it only one word has been used namely, "fgftfffa" 10. Shri Khan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, has challenged this order on two grounds. Firstly, he has contended that this is not a speaking order and, therefore, it does not carry any weight in the eyes of law. It was the farther submission of Shri Khan that when in a particular notification the Cane Officer was authorised to file a complaint petition only with the prior approval of the Cane Commissioner, the order of the Cane Commis sioner granting the approval should be a speaking order giving out the reasons why he exercised his discretion in the mat ter sanctioning the prosecution. In the present case, the Cane Commissioner has not passed any speaking order and, therefore, I find force in the contention of the learned counsel. 11. It has further been contended by Shri Khan that in terms of the above mentioned notification the complaint petition could have been filed only with the prior approval of the Cane Commissioner. It was his submission that a perusal of Annexure-2 will show that no prior approval of the Cane Commis sioner was obtained before the filing the complaint petition against the petitioners. This, according to him, is not in terms of the above mentioned notification. I find force in this contention also. If as per the notication, the Cane Officer was authorised to file the complaint petition only with the prior approval of the Cane commissioner the proper course left open to him was to submit a proposal to the cane Commissioner for prosecution of a particular person. 12. It is expected the Cane Commissioner will go through the proposal for the prosecution and will exercise his discretion in the matter. If after going through the proposal he feels that the prosecution should be launched he should pass a speaking order approving the proposal of the Cane Officer for filing the complaint petition. In the present case this does not appear to have been done. As such I find that the prosecution of the petitioners suffers from this infirmity and, therefore, the cognizance taken against them has to be quashed. This petition is, accordingly, allowed and the cognizance against the petitioners is hereby quashed. Petition allowed.