JUDGMENT

M.H. Beg, J. - There are three connected revision application before me, arising out of convictions of three different persons under Section 9 of the U.P. (Regulations of Buildings Operations) Act, 1958 (herein after referred to as `the Act') . In each of the three cases an unauthorised construction was alleged to have been made by the accused in a plot of land situated in Kichha, a village which had been duly declared a regulated area under the provisions of the Act. Dharampal applicant was alleged to have constructed a second storey on a room occupied by him in plot No. 665 after having started the constructions in the month of July, 1967, which were said to be continuing at the time when the prosecution was launched. In this case, the prosecution began with a report made by Sri Bharadwaj, P. W. 2, an Overseer of the regulated area Nainital, to the Prescribed Authority under the Act. The District Magistrate of Nainital, as the Prescribed Authority, to whom the report was sent, accorded the sanction as required by section 12 of the Act, and then directed that the report of the unauthorised construction be forwarded to the Magistrate who tried the case. In the cast of Augan Lal applicant, a similar report was made by the same Overseer of the regulated area, Sri Bharadwaj, P. W. 2. The allegation here was that the construction. of the house commenced over an area of 9 feet x 12 feet in the same plot, No. 665 in village Kichha in the month of February and continued in the month of March, 1967, without obtaining the permission of the prescribed Authority. On this report, made to the Prescribed Authority by the Overseer, the District Magistrate, as Prescribed, Authority passed an order directing that the case be sent to the Magistrate who tried it. There was a similar report, made by the Naib Tahsildar, for an unauthorised construction made by the applicant Chaudhari Ram in field no. 660, south of the old Kichha Abadi, which was described as a new construction lying within the regulated area. In this case also, the District Magistrate, as Prescribed Authority of the regulated area, sanctioned the prosecution on the report which was forwarded to a Magistrate for trial for an offence punishable under Section 9 of the Act. Thus, in each case, the Magistrate signed under the typed form showing that he had, after going through the report, sanctioned and directed a prosecution of the accused for an offence punishable under Section 9 of the Act.

2. In each of the three cases, the trying Magistrate had found that the unauthorised construction in question was made by the accused who was in possession of the land and of the building constructed on it. In each of the three cases, the Lekhpal of the village and the officer making the report had appeared as witnesses. In two of the cases the officer making the complaint was an Overseer and in the third case the officer was a Naib-Tahsildar. The questions of law which were raised in these revision applications were two: firstly, whether the report sent to the Prescribed Authority on which sanction was accorded and an order, directing that the case be tried by the Magistrate, concerned, passed by the Prescribed Authority, constituted a complaint of which cognizance could be taken under section 190 (1) (a) Cr. P. C.; and, secondly, whether the trial of the applicant was not vitiated by violation of section 247 Cr. P. C.

3. So far as the first point is concerned, I may say, at the outset, that the report made to the Prescribed Authority on which sanction was accorded, although containing the particulars of the alleged offence, such as the time and place and the manner of the commission of the offence in respect of the construction mentioned there as well as the name of the alleged offender, does not, on the face of it, appear to be a complaint to the trying Magistrate. The report, treated as a complaint and forwarded to the trying Magistrate, was really made to the Prescribed Authority for