AJIT KUMAR SENGUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS Revisional application is directed against the order dated 4-5-83 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Durgapore in C. R. Case No. 358/82 and 279/82. The said cases were filed against the accused persons on the allegation that they committed offences punishable under S. 72-A of the Mines Act, 1952. ( 2 ) BY that order, the Learned Magistrate upheld the contention of the learned defence lawyer challenging the maintainability of the prosecution on the ground that the complainant an Inspector of Mines appointed under S. 5 of the Mines Act was not authorised by the Chief Inspector to institute such prosecution. ( 3 ) THE learned Magistrate quoted the Notification whereby the officers of the Mines Directorate appointed as Inspectors were authorised to institute prosecution for any offence under the Mines Act, 1952. The then Chief Inspector of Mines issued the said notification published in the Gazette of India on 8-7-80 in exercise of powers under S. 75 of the Mines Act generally authorising all the officers of the Directorate appointed as Inspectors under S. 5 (1) of the Mines Act, 1952 to institute such prosecution. ( 4 ) IT is undisputed that the complainant was an officer appointed as Inspector of Mines under S. 5 of the Mines Act. This complaint was filed on 14-6-82. It is also undisputed that Sri. R. G. Deo who issued that general authorisation published in the notification referred to was the Chief Inspector of Mines who was competent to issue authorisation order. The learned Magistrate upheld that there was no valid authorisation because "after the said notification by Sri R. G. Deo, as good as 5 officers of the said status were appointed as Chief Inspector" prior to the institution of the present proceeding before him and that "none of those 5 Chief Inspectors passed any order after Sri. R. G. Deo authorising any Inspector subordinate to them to file prosecution under S. 75 of the Mines Act". In the circumstances he held that Sri R. G. Deo, the then Chief Inspector having retired from the office, "the said order of authorisation to his subordinate Inspector to file prosecution loses its force" and that "further authorisation to lodge prosecution can only be passed by the Chief Inspector who was holding the said post at the time of launching the prosecution. " ( 5 ) THE findings of the learned Magistrate regarding the question of legality of the authorisation by R. G. Deo are erroneous. Under the provision of S. 75 of the Mines Act a Chief Inspector may authorise an Inspector to institute prosecution under the Mines Act either by general or special order in writing. The Section reads thus :"no prosecution shall be instituted against any owner, agent or manager for any offence under this Act except at the instance of the Chief Inspector or of the District Magistrate or of an Inspector authorised in this behalf by general or special order in writing by the Chief Inspector. "the notification as stated clearly shows that authorisation was made by general order. The said authorisation was made in exercise of a statutory function of a Chief Inspector. This does not lose its force on the retirement of the Chief Inspector exercising his powers to issue such notification under the situated. So, the authorisation remained in force at the time the prosecution was instituted. The learned Magistrate's finding that the prosecution was not maintainable on the ground that there was no proper authorisation on the retirement of R. G. Deo is erroneous. The order is liable to be set aside. ( 6 ) THE revisional application is, accordingly allowed. The Rule is made absolute. The impugned order is set aside. ( 7 ) LET the records be sent down to the court below forthwith for expeditious disposal of the cases according to law. ( 8 ) THE same order as passed in Crl. Rev. 1585/82 will govern the other Crl. Rev. No. 1586/82. Application allowed. .