A. K. CHATTERJEE, J. ( 1 ) THIS revisional application seeks to quash a proceeding pending, against the petitioners in the Court of a Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 7 (2) of the Employment Exchanges (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) Act. 1959. ( 2 ) THE petitioners happen to be the Chair Dian, Finance Manager and Chief Accountant of a certain Company and are sought to be prosecuted under the aforesaid provisions for failure to furnish employment returns in Forms E. R.-I and E. R.-II within the prescribed dates. The Ld Advocate for the petitioners has assailed the prosecution on two grounds: in the first place, it is contended that no sanction as required by Section 8 of the Act was accorded and secondly, it is only the employers who can be punished for the alleged offence but there was nothing on the record to show that the petitioners were employers within the meaning of the Act. Regarding the first contention, my attention has been drawn to the sanction which shows that the sanctioning authority recorded that on perusal of relevant documents he was satisfied that there were sufficient materials to prosecute the petitioners. Relying on a decision of the Supreme Court reported in A. I. R. 1986 S. C. 2160, it has been urged that the sanction must disclose the grounds of satisfaction of the sanctioning authority and further, he should record his reasons for the launching of prosecution in the public interest. In the instant case as noted above, the grounds of satisfaction were not recorded nor the sanctioning authority has stated that the prosecution was necessary in the public interest. Further, sanction has been accorded for prosecution of offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act without specifying under which particular sub-Section or clause of the said Section the prosecution was sanctioned. ( 3 ) THESE facts taken together suggest non-application of mind by the sanctioning authority and therefore, such a sanction cannot be regarded as a valid or a legal one. The Ld. Advocate for the State has, however, med to rely upon the provision of Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to support his argument that even if there was any irregularity in sanction for the prosecution, still this Court sitting in revision ought not to interfere with any order passed by the lower Court. The Ld. Advocate for the State has, however, med to rely upon the provision of Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to support his argument that even if there was any irregularity in sanction for the prosecution, still this Court sitting in revision ought not to interfere with any order passed by the lower Court. Section 465 of the Code could come to the aid of the opposite party if there was any irregularity in the sanction. In the instant case, however, what is found is that the sanction is in valid or illegal and not merely irregular and therefore, the provision of Section 465 of the Code cannot be attracted. ( 4 ) THUS the sanction being not in accordance with law, the Ld. Magistrate was not right in taking cognizance and the prosecution is liable to be quashed on this ground. ( 5 ) THE other ground urged by the Ld. Advocate for the petitioners also appears to be substantial. Under the act referred to above, it is the employer who is liable to be punished for failure to submit return etc. An Employer has been defined as the person who employs another and includes any person entrusted with the supervision and control of employees in an establishment. In the instant case it is undoubtedly the Company which employs the persons is the establishment and the petitioners cannot be made liable as employers until it is shown that they were entrusted with the supervision and control of the employees. There is unfortunately no such averment in the complaint. All that has been stated in the complaint is that, they were employers in their official capacity as Chairman, Finance Manager and Chief Accountant. In other words, the contention is that the petitioners are employers by reason of the position held by them which by no means is enough to show that they were actually entrusted with the supervision and control of the employees. Thus it must be held that the complaint is lacking in material averments to show that the petitioner were employers or that they could be punished for the alleged offence. For the reasons stated above, the revisional application is allowed and the proceeding in question is quashed. Revision allowed.