JUDGMENT Gurusharan Sharma, J. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 8.6.1982, whereby the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari vide official Complaint Case No. 108 of 1992 has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 43 (2) (i) (ii) read with Section 52 of t],e Bihar Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the petitioners and transferred the case for trial to the another magistrate. 2. On 8. 6. 1992 the Cane Officer, Motihari filed a complaint in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari, alleging therein that the General Manger and Cane Manager of the Motihari Sugar Mill defaulted in payment of the price of sugar cane as required under Section 43 of the Act for the crushing years 1980-90, 1990-91 and 1991-1992 and as such made themselves liable for criminal prosecution under Section 52 of the said Act. 3. Section 53 of the act authorised all Cane Officers of Bihar to file complaint, subject to approval of the Cane Commissioner, Bihar. The complaint petition (Annexure-2) shows that the Cane Commissioner had approved its filing against, the accused persons. 4. In Md. Iqbal Ahmad & others vs. '[he State of Bihar (1988 B.B.C.J. 611) this court held that the prior approval of the Cane Commissioner must be a speaking one. It was observed as under: "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." 5. In the present case this does not appear to have been done. Here Cane Commissioner on the complaint petition has merely made endorsement "Swikrit" i.e. approved, This Court in Md. Iqbal Ahmad & others (Supra) has already held that prosecution on such approval of the Cane Commissioner with out any speaking order suffered from an infirmity and consequently cognizance taken thereon was quashed. 6. It is regrettable that the decision of this court in Md. Iqbal Ahmad & others (Supra) is not being followed and the same mistake has been committed in the present case. 7. 6. It is regrettable that the decision of this court in Md. Iqbal Ahmad & others (Supra) is not being followed and the same mistake has been committed in the present case. 7. As such I find that the prosecution of the petitioners for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 53 of the Act suffered from an infirmity and the impugned cognizance taken against them is fit to be quashed. 8. This application is, accordingly, allowe4 and the order of cognizance dated 8.6.1992 against the petitioners is hereby quashed. Application Allowed.