JUDGMENT B.D. Rathi, J. 1. The appellants have been convicted for an offence under Section 27 of the M.P. Vinirdishta Bhrashta Acharan Nivaran Adhiniyam, 1982 (for short "the Adhiniyam") and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default to suffer SI for three months. The impugned judgment dated 9-12-1997 was passed by I Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in Sessions Trial No. 115/93. At the relevant point of time, appellants were respectively working as President and Secretary of Sarvodaya Grah Nirman Sahkari Samiti, Bairagarh (hereinafter referred to as "the Samiti"), which was a registered Society. According to the prosecution case, without obtaining necessary approval and coloniser's licence from the Competent Officer and without valid transfer and mutation, appellant carved out plots on land bearing Survey Nos. 109, 116/2, 117/2, 110/2, 113/2 and 116/1 at Village Laukhedi, admeasuring 7.02 acres, and entered into agreements to sell the same to the members of the Samiti, as a result of which, houses were constructed thereon in violation of Sections 24, 25 and 26, punishable under Section 27 of the Adhiniyam. On the facts mentioned above, a memo was sent to the Commissioner by Collector, Bhopal vide memo No. 20/R-1/94, dated 18-1-1994, on the basis of which, direction for registration of crime and further investigation was issued by the Prescribed Authority, viz., Commissioner, Bhopal under Section 39 of the Adhiniyam. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Court of Session and after completion of trial, impugned judgment was passed. 2. It is not disputed that for the purpose of providing plots to the members of the Samiti, agreements were entered into between the Samiti and joint Bhumiswamis, viz., Sunderlal, Kasturibai, Kedar and Raghunath for purchasing their lands for considerations of Rs. 50,000/- per acre excluding the sale price of Well, viz., Rs. 12,000/- and the possession was obtained after making a payment of Rs. 84,000/- to each Bhumiswami. For the aforesaid land, the Samiti had neither taken No Objection Certificate from Nazul Department nor any permission for its diversion and development. It is also admitted that on deposition of land fees of Rs. 5,105/- and Development Charges of Rs. 20,000/- by the members of the Samiti, agreements on stamp papers were executed for allotment of plots to them and they had also constructed about 60 to 70 houses on the respective plots. It is also admitted that on deposition of land fees of Rs. 5,105/- and Development Charges of Rs. 20,000/- by the members of the Samiti, agreements on stamp papers were executed for allotment of plots to them and they had also constructed about 60 to 70 houses on the respective plots. It is also admitted that No Objection Certificate from Nazul Department, Licence for developing colony, diversion order and sanctioned maps for construction of houses, were not obtained by the Samiti. 3. During the trial, the appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge and contended that they had been falsely implicated. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Samiti neither carved out plots on the land, nor granted permission to the members of the Samiti for carrying out any construction. According to her, it was agreed to between the Samiti and its members that only after getting the land diverted and obtaining necessary approval from the Competent Authorities, the plots will be allotted to them and only then they would get right to construct their houses on the corresponding plots, but members of the Samiti, after taking unauthorised possession of the land, have constructed their houses. For this, learned Counsel has invited attention of the Court to the order dated 8-1-93 passed by IV Civil Judge Class II, Bhopal in Civil Suit No. 121-A/89, whereby injunction was granted to restrain the defendants from construction on the suit land in favour of the appellants herein. It was also argued by learned Counsel that sanction was not properly granted by the Prescribed Authority as no report was submitted by the Investigating Officer before the authority. Such sanction could not have been granted on the basis of memo sent by Collector. Therefore, cognizance in this case was void ab initio. 5. In response, learned Government Advocate, while making reference to the incriminating pieces of evidence on record, submitted that the conviction was well-merited. It was also submitted that the sanction granted by Prescribed Authority was proper. 6. Having regard to the arguments advanced by the parties and after perusal of the record, in the opinion of the Court, direction issued by the Prescribed Authority, i.e., Commissioner for registration of crime and investigation was not in accordance with law. 7. Radheshyam Tiwari (P.W. 5) has deposed that permission (Exh. P-16) was granted by the Commissioner. 6. Having regard to the arguments advanced by the parties and after perusal of the record, in the opinion of the Court, direction issued by the Prescribed Authority, i.e., Commissioner for registration of crime and investigation was not in accordance with law. 7. Radheshyam Tiwari (P.W. 5) has deposed that permission (Exh. P-16) was granted by the Commissioner. It is apparent from perusal of Exh. P-16 that the direction issued on the basis of memo sent by Collector, Bhopal as indicated above, was not in accordance with law. It would be useful to quote the language of Section 39 of the Adhiniyam as under:-- 39. Cognizance of offences.-- All offences under this Act shall be cognizable: Provided that the police officer shall not investigate an offence under this Act except on a direction of the Prescribed Authority not below the rank of the Commissioner of Division on a report submitted by him to such authority. 8. For the purpose of investigation, a police officer is required to make a report to the authority which shall not be below the rank of Commissioner of the Division. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the police officer who investigated into the matter, before entering into the investigation, did not submit a report to such authority. In the absence of the report of this nature, even the Commissioner is not competent to take cognizance of the matter and direct investigation. The jurisdiction of the Commissioner to direct investigation comes in force only if the police officer competent to investigate makes a report to him regarding these matters. It is clear from the facts of the case that the Collector, Bhopal wrote the letter dated 18-1-94 to the Commissioner and asked him to grant sanction for investigation. The Collector clearly acted beyond his jurisdiction. If the Collector was of the opinion that offences of this nature are growing up then too he cannot make a complaint directly to the Commissioner. He should have firstly informed the police officer to make an application before the Commissioner putting all the facts and then to seek permission for investigation. But, in this case by issuing order (Exh. P-16), registration of crime was also directed by the Commissioner. He should have firstly informed the police officer to make an application before the Commissioner putting all the facts and then to seek permission for investigation. But, in this case by issuing order (Exh. P-16), registration of crime was also directed by the Commissioner. As per the provisions contained in Section 39, such direction could not have been issued by the Commissioner, and the direction could have been issued only for initiating investigation, meaning thereby that by the time of issuing order (Exh. P-16), offence was not registered in Police Station. 9. In view of the aforesaid, the cognizance taken by Court was void ab initio and bad in law and the order of conviction can be quashed on this ground alone. 10. Even otherwise, the order dated 8-6-1994 (Exh. P-16) passed by Commissioner prima facie does not show application of mind. A perusal of the order shows that the material, which was required for coming to a positive conclusion was never placed before the Commissioner. The Khasra entries and the registered documents/agreements, in the light of injunction order which was passed in favour of appellants, showing involvement of the present appellants in an offence under the Adhiniyam, were never placed before the Commissioner. It is important to note that the offences relating to illegal colonisation, fall under Chapter VIII of the Adhiniyam. Section 24(b) defines the term "local area". If any offence is committed, as defined under Section 24 read with Sections 25 and 26 of the Adhiniyam, it is necessary that construction should be made on the land or plot, which was situated in the local area as defined in Section 24(b). 11. So, before granting the permission, Commissioner ought to have looked into the matter and got satisfied that the offence was being committed on the land/plots in "local area" and for that purpose it was also necessary that sufficient material in that regard was placed before the authority by the Investigating Officer. In this case, the disputed land/plots were situated in Village Laukhedi. A perusal of Exh. P-16 reveals that this aspect was not considered as the Commissioner has nowhere mentioned therein that the lands/plots fell within the "local area". 12. In this case, the disputed land/plots were situated in Village Laukhedi. A perusal of Exh. P-16 reveals that this aspect was not considered as the Commissioner has nowhere mentioned therein that the lands/plots fell within the "local area". 12. Moreover, this fact could not be ignored that there was an injunction in favour of appellants, restraining the defendants/plot holders from raising further construction on the respective plots and for violation of that, appellants could not be held liable. Accordingly, conviction of the appellants is bad in law and cannot be sustained. In the result, the appeal stands allowed. Conviction of the appellant under Section 27 of the Adhiniyam and the consequent sentence are hereby set aside. Fine amount, if deposited, be refunded.