D. P. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) THE State had filed this appeal u/s. 378 (1), Criminal Procedure Code assailing the appellate judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Ganjam in appeal acquitting the respondent of the charge u/s. 13 (1) of the Rice Milling Industries (Regulation) Act, 1958 (hereinafter, referred to as the 'act' ). The learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chatrapur (S. D. J. M.) had convicted him of the said offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. ( 2 ) THE gist of the prosecution case is that on 31-3-77 at about 5-30 p. m. when the Inspector of Supplies, Purusottampur (P. W. 4), other supply officials and the Executive Magistrate (P. W. 1) visited the rice mill of the respondent they found the mill premises to be locked up and the respondent Jagat Mohan Padhi present on the premises. On being asked by the Supply Inspector to open door of the mill he refused. From the stock of paddy and rice kept inside the mill premises the supply officials came to know that just before their arrival the mill was under operation. On their demand the respondent failed to produce any valid permit to establish the mill and licence for operation therein. On these allegations the Inspector submitted the prosecution report (Ext. 1) against the respondent Jagat Mohan Padhi and his father Raghunath Padhi. ( 3 ) THE accused persons denied the allegations altogether. They denied that they had any rice mill or that they were carrying on any milling operation in rice. They also denied that the supply officials visited the spot on the date as alleged. They further pleaded that due to past enmity with the Supply Inspector a false case was foisted against them. ( 4 ) THE prosecution examined six witnesses, of whom P. W. 1 was the Executive Magistrate, P. W. 2 was the Supply Supervisor, P. W. 3 was the local Sarpanch, P. W. 4 was the Supply Inspector who submitted the prosecution report, P. W. 5 was another Supply Inspector who went with the team and P. W. 6 was the peon in supply office. Two witnesses were examined on behalf of he defence including D. W. 1, the respondent Jagat Mohan Padhi. Two witnesses were examined on behalf of he defence including D. W. 1, the respondent Jagat Mohan Padhi. ( 5 ) THE learned trial Judge on assessment of the materials on record held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Raghunath Padhi had established the rice mill and was carrying on rice milling operation without a valid permit and licence, but the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that it was the respondent Jagat Mohan Padhi who had established that rice mill and was carrying on rice milling operation without any permit and licence and thereby had contravened S. 8 of the Act. Accordingly, Raghunath Padhi was acquitted and Jagat Mohan Padhi was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The court further ordered that the plant and machinery of the rice mill shall be confiscated to the State u/s. 14-B of the Act. ( 6 ) THE respondent Jagat Mohan Padhi filed appeal which was disposed of by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in the manner indicated earlier. ( 7 ) FROM the judgment of the appellate court it appears that two points were urged in support of the appeal : (i) that there was no valid sanction order by the competent authority in respect of the offence u/s. 13 (1) of the Act : and (ii) that the appellant had been tried for the same offence earlier and he had been acquitted in the case as per the judgment, Ext. A. The learned appellate Judge accepted the first contention and held that while the sanction order was u/s. 13 (2) of the Act, the accused-appellant was prosecuted u/s. 13 (1) of the Act. He rejected the second contention as incorrect and untrue. ( 8 ) ON the discussion in the preceding paragraphs the sole question that arises for consideration is whether the lower appellate court was right in acquitting the respondent on the ground of absence of a valid sanction. At the outset it will be convenient to notice the relevant provisions in the Act. Section 15 of the Act reads as follows :"s. 15. At the outset it will be convenient to notice the relevant provisions in the Act. Section 15 of the Act reads as follows :"s. 15. Cognizance of offence - No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act except on a report in writing of the facts constituting such offence made by the licensing officer or any person duly authrorised by the Central Government or the licensing officer in this behalf. " section 4 of the Act which deals with appointment of licensing officers empowers the Central Government by notified order to appoint any person, being gazetted officer of Govt. as it thinks fit to be licensing officer for the purpose of the Act and to define the limits within which a licensing officer shall exercise the powers conferred on licensing officers by or under the Act. Section 13 which provides the penalties for contravention of the provisions of the Act reads as follows :"s. 13 (1 ). If any person contravenes or attempts to any of the provisions of S. 8 or sub-sec. (2) of S. 18, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both, and in case of a continuing contravention, with an additional fine which may extend to five hundred rupees for every day during which such contravention continues after conviction for the first such contravention : provided that where such contravention, attempt or abetment relates to sub-sec. (1) or sub-sec. (2), or clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-sec. (3) of S. 8, or sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 18, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month. (1) or sub-sec. (2), or clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-sec. (3) of S. 8, or sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 18, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month. (2) If any person, - (a) when required by this Act or by any order under this Act to make any statement or furnish any information, makes any statement or furnishes any information which is false in any material particular and which he knows or has reason to believe to be false or does not believe to be true, or (b) makes any such statement as aforesaid, in any book, account, record, declaration, return or other document which he is required to maintain or furnish under this Act, or (c) contravenes any rule the contravention of which is made punishable under this sub-section, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both. ( 9 ) THERE is no dispute that the Sub-divisional Officer, Chatrapur is the licensing officer appointed u/s. 4 of the Act for the area in question. The said authority by his order dated 16-4-77 (Ext. 1) authorised Shri M. Y. Cheti, Inspector of Supplies, Purusottampur, to file prosecution report in writing covering the facts constituting offence under S. 13 (2) of the Act in the Court of the S. D. J. M. , Chatrapur. On the basis of the said authority the Inspector of Supplies, Purusottampur filed the prosecution report making the allegations, gist of which has been stated earlier. Item No. 4 of the prosecution report reads as follows :4. Section of law under which the offence is punishable (mention the penal provision ). For contravention of sections 8 (1) and 6 of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation), Act 1958 punishable under section 13 of the Rice Milling Industry (Regulation) Act, 1958. "and convinced and sentenced under the said section. No. 18/83 is set aside and the judgment of the learned S. D. J. M. Chatrapur in 2 (c) CC No. 73 of 1977/t. R. 707/77 is confirmed. "and convinced and sentenced under the said section. No. 18/83 is set aside and the judgment of the learned S. D. J. M. Chatrapur in 2 (c) CC No. 73 of 1977/t. R. 707/77 is confirmed. It is not disputed that the respondent was proceeded against under S. 13 (1) of the Act no provision in the Act and the Rules has been brought to my notice which expressly requires sanction of consent of any authority before the competent court takes cognizance of any offence punishable under the Act. All that S. 15 provides is that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under the Act except on a report in writing of the facts constituting such offence made by the licensing officer or any person duly authorised by the Central Government or the licensing officer in this behalf. If the prosecution report is filed by an officer duly authorised by the licensing officer in that behalf and the said prosecution report clearly sets out the facts constituting the offence alleged, then the requirement of the section, in my view, is complied with. Concededly the Inspector of Supplies, Purusottampur was duly authorised by the licensing officer to file the prosecution report in this case. On perusal of the said report, it appears that all factual averments alleged against the respondent making out the offence u/s, 13 have been clearly set out. The trial proceeded on the basis of the allegations made in the said report. The accused respondent was well aware of the allegations made against him and participated in the trial with full knowledge of it. As such, there was no question of any prejudice to him because of mention of S. 13 (2) in the order as per Ext. 1 authorising the Inspector of Supplies to file the prosecution report. The finding of the appellate court that sanction as required under the Act was not there, was, in may view, based on a misreading of the relevant provisions of the Act and lack of proper application of mind. ( 10 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed; the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur in Criminal Appeal No. 18/83 is set aside and the judgment of the learned S. D. J. M. Chatrapur in 2 (c) CC No. 73 of 1977/t. R. 707/77 is confirmed. Appeal allowed.