B. J. SHETHNA, J. ( 1 ) BY way of this appeal, the appellant State of Gujarat has challenged the judgement and order of acquittal dated 6. 7. 2000, passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Valsad in Criminal Case No. 4035 of 1996, whereby the respondent accused is acquitted for the offence under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948 for committing breach of the provisions of Section 36 (1) of the Factories Act. From the record of this case it appears that this appeal was presented in the office of this Court on 5th October, 2000, which was signed by Shri B. Y. Mankad as Additional Public Prosecutor of this Court, who is appearing in this matter today. ( 2 ) THERE cannot be any other case of such inefficiency and incompetency of an advocate in drafting and filing the matter. Apart from the fact that the pages of the judgement of the learned Magistrate are not properly arranged, bare reading of the memo of this appeal drafted by the advocate who is the main Public Prosecutor of the State makes it difficult to even understand the averments. ( 3 ) LOOKING at the endorsement made below page 5 of the memo, learned APP Shri Mankad stated at the bar that this memo was dictated by main Public Prosecutor of the State Shri Arun D. Oza and typed by Steno Shri Achuthan Nair. The memo of this appeal is having full of spelling and grammatical mistakes. I am really surprised to know that such a memo is drafted by not any novice person at the Bar but the main Public Prosecutor himself who is also co-incidentally main Government Pleader of this Court. ( 4 ) IT is settled law that once the matter is presented before the Court, no correction can be made in the memo of appeal without the permission of the Court. Inspite of it, such correction is made in it on 8. 3. 2001, which bears the signature of Shri H. C. Patel, Clerk of the Office of the Government Pleader, as stated at the bar by learned APP Shri Mankad. Inspite of it, such correction is made in it on 8. 3. 2001, which bears the signature of Shri H. C. Patel, Clerk of the Office of the Government Pleader, as stated at the bar by learned APP Shri Mankad. ( 5 ) THE State of Gujarat is the appellant but initially it was typed "tobe served through the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Ahmedabad", which was later on struck-off and instead of that it is written "on behalf of Shri J. J. Vaghela, Senior Inspector of Factories, Valsad (Notice to be served through above appellant) and below appellant it is written "orig. complainant". This is also in the hand-writing of Shri H. C. Patel, which bears his initial and date. ( 6 ) I have under-lined at several places of the memo of this appeal only with a view to highlight not only spelling and grammatical mistakes, but also poor use of English language. ( 7 ) I am told by learned APP Shri B. Y. Mankad that Shri Arun Oza was appointed as main Public Prosecutor of this Court in February, 2000. Before passing this order, I waited for Mr. Oza for a pretty long time, if he had to offer any explanation for such drafting, but he did not come, therefore, I have passed this order in his absence. ( 8 ) HOWEVER, on merits learned APP Shri Mankad vehemently submitted that this Court has to consider whether the judgement and order passed by the learned Magistrate was in accordance with law or not, and this Court should not throw away matter because of the poor drafting. There is a lot of substance in what is submitted by Shri Mankad that the learned Magistrate was wrong in acquitting the accused on the ground of limitation, therefore, no injustice should be done in the matter on account of poor drafting by the PP. HENCE, leave granted. Appeal admitted. ( 9 ) BEFORE parting, I must state that the appointment of Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutors are to be made in the High Court by the Central Government or the State Government after consultation with the High Court as per the provisions of Section 24 Cr. P. C. Mr. Oza was appointed as a Public Prosecutor in Feb. 2000. I have come back to this State only last month i. e. June, 2001. P. C. Mr. Oza was appointed as a Public Prosecutor in Feb. 2000. I have come back to this State only last month i. e. June, 2001. If I was there at the time of his appointment as Public Prosecutor then I would have never agreed at the time of consultation process because of his poor knowledge of language and laws. ( 10 ) UNDER the circumstances, Registrar General of this Court is directed to place this matter before the learned Chief Justice for taking appropriate decision in the matter, forthwith. .