S. C. VYAS, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr. P. C. , for quashment of the order passed by 2nd Additional sessions Judge, Alirajpur in Criminal Revision no. 49/2003, whereby the order passed by Judicial Magistrate First class, Alirajpur in Criminal Case No. 2250/ 1999 on 4. 2. 2003 was set aside and it was directed that prosecution against present applicant will go on before Trial Court. ( 2 ) THE petitioner and some other persons were charge-sheeted prosecuted before judicial Magistrate First Class, Alirajpur for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') and Section 420 read with Section 34 of the I. P. C. In charge-sheet it was alleged that substandard insecticides were found stored in a lodge, which were seized. During investigation it was found that present petitioner, who was working in the capacity of a Manager, Vipnan Sahakari Sanstha, Alirajpur supplied those substandard insecticides to another co-operative society. M/s. Shiphon chemical Private Limited, Pithampur was the manufacturer of that insecticides (Monocrotophos-36) and accused Prahlad mishra was the owner of that company, who manufactured that drug. It was marketed by co-accused Hukum Singh Pawar, who was proprietor of M/s. Gayatri Sales Agency, indore and it is alleged that from that distributor present petitioner received that stock of insecticides, which was later on seized by the police. It is also alleged that on chemical examination it was found that the drug was sub-standard and present petitioner was dealing in insecticides without obtaining any valid licence and thereby cheated Government and farmers, who purchased that insecticides from his society. After investigation charge-sheet was filed before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Alirajpur. ( 3 ) WHEN learned Trial Court examined the matter then it was found that no consent for prosecution was obtained or filed as per the provisions of Section 31 of the act before prosecution of the present petitioner. It was also found that certain mandatory provisions of the Act were not followed and, therefore, on these grounds present petitioner as well as other accused persons were discharged. It was also found that certain mandatory provisions of the Act were not followed and, therefore, on these grounds present petitioner as well as other accused persons were discharged. ( 4 ) STATE Government went in revision before 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, alirajpur, who by the impugned order held that the objections taken by the petitioner as well as other accused persons were technical in nature and such technical objections should not have been considered by the Trial court at this stage. He found that prima facie offences punishable under Sections 13, 29 and 33 of the Act and Section 420 read with Section 34 of the I. P. C. are made out against the present petitioner as well as other co-accused persons, and, therefore, the order of their discharge passed by learned trial Court was set aside and the matter was remanded back for trial. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant Shri prakash Verma contended that present petitioner yatendra Singh Waghela is a Government servant and was working as a Cooperative Inspector. He was sent on deputation to work as Manager, Vipnan Sahkari sanstha, at the relevant time. It has further argued that Co-operative Society. Vipnan Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit applied for licence under the Act to Deputy Director, agriculture, Jhabua. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that application for granting licence was submitted on 29. 6. 1998 and ultimately, licence was granted on 15. 12. 1998. The facts of the case show that the Society started dealing in business of insecticides since August, 1998. in anticipation of grant of licence because application for licence was already submitted to before the concerning authority and in routine course licence was to be issued to the Society at Alirajpur as well as other societies. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that present petitioner being a public servant had not gained personally anything but of the business of insecticides, as business was done by co-operative society and, therefore, he neither gained anything wrongfully nor caused any loss to anyone wrongfully and so prima facie offence punishable under Section 420 of i. P. C. is not made out against the present petitioner. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner further contended that offences punishable under Sections 13, 29, 33 of the Act cannot be tried against the present petitioner by learned Magistrate for want of sanction or consent as provided in Section 31 of the Act. Learned Counsel further submitted that the prosecution is bad in law from the date when it was lodged and, therefore, learned Magistrate was perfectly alright when he discharged present petitioner on the ground of not producing any sanction under the provisions of Section 31 of the Act. ( 7 ) PER contra, learned public prosecutor submitted that the present petitioner as well as other accused persons have not been prosecuted only under the provisions of Sections 13, 29 and 33 of the Act, but they have also been prosecuted for the offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of I. P. C. ( 8 ) LEARNED public prosecutor further submitted that District Magistrate, Jhabua has granted permission to file revision petition for challenging the impugned order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, alirajpur on 25. 6. 2006 and directed the department to file revision petition and, therefore, this permission to file revision petition amounts granting consent to prosecute the present petitioner under the provisions of the Act. ( 9 ) IT will be useful to reproduce the provisions of Section 31 of the Act. This section reads as under: "section 31 (1) No prosecution for an offence under this Act shall be instituted except by, or with the written consent of, the state Government or a person authorised in this behalf by the state Government. (2) No Court inferior to that of a (Metropolitan Magistrate or a judicial Magistrate of the first class) shall try any offence under this Act. " ( 10 ) MERE reading of the section shows that the written consent of the State Government or a persons authorised in this behalf by the State Government is necessary before institution of the prosecution and no prosecution against anyone under the provisions of the Act can be instituted except with a written consent of the State Government or concerning authority. In other words such written consent is a condition precedent for initiating the proceedings for lodging the prosecution. In other words such written consent is a condition precedent for initiating the proceedings for lodging the prosecution. ( 11 ) LEARNED Trial Magistrate in its order has clearly held that no such consent has been obtained before instituting prosecution against the present petitioner, even when the order was passed by the Magistrate, by that time also no such consent was produced before Trial Court. Till today also, learned public prosecutor is not in a position to produce any written consent for prosecution of the present petitioner under the provisions of the Act. What letter has been shown by the public prosecutor is simply a letter giving permission to file a criminal revision challenging the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate before Sessions Court. Such permission for preferring a revision cannot amount to a writ consent as provided in Section 31 of the Act. For granting consent or sanction, application of mind is necessary and there is nothing on record to show that even before granting permission, to prefer revision the entire record of the case was seen by the District Magistrate and, he applied his full mind on the allegation against the petitioner and then granted consent to prosecute the present petitioner under the provisions of the Act, therefore, examining from all angles the letter, which has been shown by the learned public prosecutor cannot be treated as written consent under the provisions of Sections 13, 29 and 33 of the Act, and so, it is held that prosecution of the present petitioner is without any consent, which was necessary under the provisions of section 31 of the Act and so, prosecution under provisions of Sections 13, 29 and 33 of the Act is bad and is liable to be quashed. ( 12 ) SO far as, the prosecution under Section 420 of the I. P. C. is concerned the entire record shows that total material collected by the investigating agency against the present petitioner during investigation simply shows that present petitioner in the capacity of Manager of the Society dealt in insecticides without obtaining any licence. There is no other evidence to indicate that the present petitioner in anyway cheated anyone. There is nothing to show that he has caused any wrongful loss to the Government or anyone and gained anything wrongfully. There is no other evidence to indicate that the present petitioner in anyway cheated anyone. There is nothing to show that he has caused any wrongful loss to the Government or anyone and gained anything wrongfully. In absence of any such material, it is difficult to agree with learned public prosecutor and therefore, it appears that the prosecution of the present petitioner under Section 420 of the I. P. C. also is without any evidence and, therefore, its continuation against him is merely an abuse of process of law and, therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. ( 13 ) RESULTANTLY, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The prosecution of the present petitioner is hereby quashed. The order of prosecution of the present petitioner passed in Criminal Revision No. 49/2003 being abuse of process of law, and is hereby quashed. Petition allowed. .