JUDGMENT (ORAL) Ashok Agarwal, J. - By the present petition the petitioner seeks to quash the prosecution lodged against her vide C.R. No. 361/92 of the Oshiwara Police Station, Bombay which is pending in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Andheri, Bombay. Petitioner also seeks an order to release the bank account and other properties seized from her during investigation. A few facts leading to the filing of the present petition may be stated. 2. Petitioner claims to have come to Bombay alongwith her husband from Calcutta in 1979. Sometime in the year 1986 she came in contact with one T.S. Kumaran with whom she developed intimate relations. This T.S. Kumaran is a co-accused alongwith the petitioner but is shown as absconding. As far as Kumaran is concerned, he has left Bombay sometime in the year 1989. The petitioner has lost contact with him since then. It, however, appears that during the time when the petitioner was in contact with Kumaran they had opened a joint bank account, and also a bank locker. They had certain properties in their joint names as well. 3. By a notification issued on the 14th of May, 1992 L.T.T.E. was declared as an unlawful association under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. On 10Ih of December, 1992 a notification was issued authorising Secretaries of State Government in the Home Department to grant sanction for prosecution under the aforesaid Act. On the 1st of June, 1992 Oshiwara Police Station registered the present C.R. No. 361/92 against the said T.S. Kumaran and the petitioner. On 19th of October, 1993 the Deputy Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, accorded sanction to prosecute the petitioner. A charge-sheet was accordingly filed against the petitioner in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate 10th Court, Andheri, Bombay. During the pendency of investigation, certain properties belonging to the petitioner, which are enumerated in an affidavit of the petitioner dated the 10th of October, 1994, were seized. The petitioner prays that the aforesaid prosecution be quashed and the properties which have been seized should be directed to be returned to her. 4. During the pendency of investigation, certain properties belonging to the petitioner, which are enumerated in an affidavit of the petitioner dated the 10th of October, 1994, were seized. The petitioner prays that the aforesaid prosecution be quashed and the properties which have been seized should be directed to be returned to her. 4. Shri Chitnis, the learned counsel appearing in support of the petition, has placed reliance on the notification dated the 10th of December, 1992 and has pointed out that the Central Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 17 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (37 of 1967) has authorised the Secretaries of the State Governments and Union Territory's Administrations in charge of the Home Department to exercise powers to sanction prosecution in respect of the offences punishable under the said Act. He has next pointed out that the sanction in the present case which has been obtained on the 19th of October, 1993 has been issued not by the Secretary but by a Deputy Secretary in the Home Department. In our view, Mr. Chitnis is justified in his criticism that the senction has not been accorded by an authority who has been entrusted with the power to accord sanction. Hence, the prosecution which is based on a sanction which is illegal deserves to be quashed. 5. Shri Chitnis has next pointed out that L.T.T.E. has been declared as an unlawful association by a notification issued on the 14th of May, 1992. Hence, it is only such activities which are attributed to the petitioner subsequent to the said date can fall within the mischief of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. As far as the present order of sanction is concerned, as also the other material which is placed on record, the same docs not pin point the period during which the so called unlawful activities of the petitioner are alleged against her. As far as T.S. Kumaran is concerned, he is said to have left Bombay in the year 1989 and the petitioner has not been in contact with him since then. It is difficult, in the circumstances, to hold that the prosecution has collected any material to show the petitioner's involvement with L.T.T.E after the 14th of May, 1992 on which date the same was declared unlawful. It is difficult, in the circumstances, to hold that the prosecution has collected any material to show the petitioner's involvement with L.T.T.E after the 14th of May, 1992 on which date the same was declared unlawful. As far as the recites of the order of sanction is concerned, it recites, as under: "And whereas it appears to the Government of Maharashtra that during the period and at the place mentioned in the appended schedule the accused persons have committed the offence (hereinafter referred to as "the said offence") punishable under Sections 10 and 13 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967." As far as the Schedule is concerned the same docs not give any period or the place when the offence is alleged to have been committed. All that it provides is as under: "The Police have seized certain documents from the house which is in possession of Smt. Protima. The list of seizures indicates that the accused Shri Kumaran is an active member of the banned organisation namely LTTE. He has accumulated funds in his account. Admittedly Smt. Protima is the joint account holder and utilising the funds. This fact clearly indicates that Smt. Protima is abetting the accused Shri Kumaran for his unlawful activities. Hence prosecution against Smt. Protima for the offence u/s. 10 and13 of the said Act is necessary." It would, thus, he seen that the time and the place of offence has not at all been indicated as claimed in the recital of the sanction order. No material has been placed before us to show the involvement of the petitioner with L.T.T.E. after the 14th of May, 1992. No material is elucidated to show the involvement of the petitioner with the banned organisation after the same was declared unlawful. Section 7 of the Act empowers the Central Government to prohibit the use of funds of an unlawful association. No order has been issued prohibiting the petitioner from using the properties of the association as contemplated by the Section. Since no order is passed, petitioner has had no opportunity to challenge the order before thy District Judge as provided under sub section (4) of Section 7. In the circumstances, we are constrained to hold that the present prosecution is misconceived and is untenable and is, therefore, liable to be quashed. Since no order is passed, petitioner has had no opportunity to challenge the order before thy District Judge as provided under sub section (4) of Section 7. In the circumstances, we are constrained to hold that the present prosecution is misconceived and is untenable and is, therefore, liable to be quashed. As a consequence of this order, the petitioner will also be entitled to the return of the properties which have been seized from her during investigation. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses a. and c. The respondents are directed to return to the petitioner the properties which are mentioned by her in her affidavit dated the 14th of October, 1994. Petition allowed.