Private prosecution under the Registration Act was permitted; Section 83 was held not to be a mandatory bar.

Section 83 of the Indian Registration Act was construed as an enabling provision that applies when an offence comes to the knowledge of a registering officer in an official capacity. It does not create a mandatory bar to prosecution by a private person, and permission under that section was not a prerequisite to maintain the complaint under Section 82. The Court rejected the argument that Section 83 prescribed the only valid mode of prosecution, holding instead that it merely protects specified officers when they initiate proceedings. On that objection, the complaint remained competent and the conviction was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether a prosecution for an offence under Section 82 of the Indian Registration Act could be commenced by a private person without the permission contemplated by Section 83 of the Act.

Analysis: Section 83 was held to apply only where an offence under the Act comes to the knowledge of a registering officer in his official capacity. Its language was treated as enabling, not prohibitory, and therefore it did not bar a private person from instituting a prosecution. The Court rejected the construction that would make the section a special mandatory procedure, noting that such a reading would unjustifiably create a total bar in cases where the registering authority did not act. The Court approved the view that Section 83 authorises certain officers to launch prosecution without personal risk, but does not exclude private prosecutions.

Conclusion: Permission under Section 83 was not a prerequisite for maintaining the complaint, and the conviction was upheld on that objection.

---