An order granting sanction for investigation under Section 39 of the M. P. Vinirdishta Bhrashta Acharan Nivaran Adhiniyam, 1982 must be based on the subjective satisfaction of the authority and must consider all the material facts, including whether the area in question falls within the definition of "local area" under the Act.

( 1 ) THIS is a revision by the State Government against the order dated 7-12-1992 passed in Sessions Trial No. 201 of 1992, by the learned Sessions Judge, Sehore, inter alia holding that the order dated 12-4-1991 does not meet the requirements of Section 39 of the M. P. Vinirdishta Bhrashta Acharan Nivaran Adhiniyam (Act No. 35 of 1982), therefore, the prosecution is not entitled to continue against the non-applicant.

( 2 ) IT is not in dispute that on 25-3-1991, D. O. letter No. 170/reader/91 was sent by the Collector Sehore, along with a copy of the earlier letter dated 3-12-1990, bearing No. 1240/1244/steno/90, to the Commissioner. On receipt of the letter dated 25-3-1991, the Commissioner, Bhopal, asked for certain informations which were communicated to him telephonically. After considering these two letters and the telephonic instructions, the Commissioner, Bhopal, ordered that a case be registered against the miscreants and the same be investigated in accordance with law. On the back of the letter dated 12-4-1991, there is an endorsement which reads that the Collector should supply copy of the Khasra and registered documents to the office of the Commissioner and should also send the said copies to the Superintendent of Police.

( 3 ) UNDER the cover of the letter dated 12-4-1991, the Collector, Sehore, by his letter dated 25-10-1991, bearing No. 1612/steno/91, directed the District Registrar to lodge a complaint in police. In pursuance to the Collector's direction, the District Registrar sent a letter/complaint dated 2-11-1991 to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Sehore, informing him that Rajendra Rathore had committed breach of the provisions of Section 24 (a) of the Act in relation to certain agricultural lands bearing survey Nos. 326, 331/1 and 326/7 of village Murli, which is adjoining the borders of the Municipal limits of Sehore Municipality. The said letter dated 2-11-1991 was registered as the first information report. A challan was filed before the trial Court and the non-applicant submitted before the Court that the order dated 12-4-1991 was illegal, it does not show application of mind, so also the Court cannot take cognizance of the matter. The trial Court discharged the accused person.

( 4 ) SHRI A. P. Singh, learned Panel Lawyer submitted that the letter dated 12-4-1991 meets the norms and standard required under Section 39. He also submitted that at this stage, the Court should not have examined the said order so meticulously but should have proceeded with the trial. On the other hand, Shri Imtiaz Hussain contended that if the very foundation under Section 29 of the Act is vitiated, the Court is not competent to take cognizance of the matter.

( 5 ) IT would be useful to quote the language of Section 39 of the Act as it stood in the year 1991. "39. Cognizance of offence-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. "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 the 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 more only if the Police Officer competent to investigate makes a report to him regarding these matters. It is clear from the facts on the case that the Collector, Sehore, wrote the letter dated 25-3-1991 to the Commissioner and asked him to grant sanction for investigation. The Collector