JUDGMENT - PURANIK S.W., J.: - The revision is directed against the order of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Karanja, passed on 27-3-1980 in Criminal Case No. 476/74, whereby he held that the sanction to prosecute the applicants as well as non-applicants Nos. 3 to 6 in respect of offences in contravention of section 7 of Food Adulteration Act is proper. 2. Initially, by this Revision, the sanction was challenged only on the ground of jurisdiction as to whether the town where the sample was taken comes within the Municipal Area or not. At the stage of admission, leave to amend was granted to the petitioners to include the challenge to the sanction on the ground that the vagueness of the sanction disclosed non-application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority. Accordingly, suitable amendments have been incorporated in the revision application. 3. Shri J.N. Chandurkar, Advocate for the applicants drew my attention to the order of sanction passed by Assistant Commissioner, Food and Drugs Administration, Akola on 30-3-1974. It may be reproduced verbatim as follows: “In exercise of the powers vested in me under section 20 of the Prevention of F.A. Act, 1954 read with Govt. Order, Urban Development Public Health and Housing Department No. PFA/1872/1569/18-5, dated 24th July , 1973, I.V.R. Kirtane, Assistant Commissioner, Akola Circle, F and Drug Admn. M.S., hereby give my consent for the prosecution of (1) Shri Maheshkumar Hanumanprasad Tiwari Salesman, (2) Shri Vidomal Gelaram Basantwani, (3) Shri Pabhumal Gelaram Basantwani, (4) Shri Hanumanprasad Chaturbhuj, (5) Shri Navinchandra Bhalchandra partners and firm, (6) M/s. Prabhumal Oil Industries, Karanja, for an offence alleged to have been committed by them as regards manufacturing, storing and selling groundnut oil on or about 20-11-73 in contravention of section 7 punishable under section 16 read with section 17 of the said Act.” 4. A bare perusal of the said consent for prosecution shows that it is an omnibus sanction for prosecution for offences alleged to have been committed as regards manufacturing, storing and selling groundnut oil on or about 20-11-1973 in contravention of section 7 punishable under section 16 read with section 17 of the said Act. The sanctioning Authority has not cared to find out whether the offence is committed in respect of manufacturing, storing and selling. It has also not cared to distinguish the offences between the manufacturers and retailers. The sanctioning Authority has not cared to find out whether the offence is committed in respect of manufacturing, storing and selling. It has also not cared to distinguish the offences between the manufacturers and retailers. It has also not cared to find out what nature of adulteration as described in various clauses of section 2(1)(a) to 2(1)(m) have been committed by each or any of the accused arrayed in the case. The sanction, in my opinion, is totally vague and gives the omnibus sanction without pinpointing specifically the nature of adulteration and offence committed by the accused. Such sanction being totally defective, goes to the very root of the case and no prosecution can be based on this type of sanction. I am supported in this view by an earlier decision of this Court in the (State of Maharashtra v. Shantilal Jamnalal Thakkar)1, 1979(1) P.F.A. 210. 5. In view of the defective sanction which goes to the root of the case, the Revision will have to be allowed and the prosecution filed against the applicants as well as the non-applicants Nos. 3 to 6 will have to be quashed and set aside. 6. In the result, therefore, Criminal Revision Application No. 80/80 is allowed. The prosecution vide Criminal Case No. 476/74 on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karanja, is hereby quashed and set aside. The applicants be set at liberty. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged. Application allowed. -----