Judgment : The petitioner who has been arrayed as A-Z out of three accused has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of quashing the proceedings initiated for the alleged offences under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 29(1)(a)(i) of the Insecticide Act 1968. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no specific allegation leveled against the petitioner herein in the complaint except stating that the petitioner was the Managing Director of the first accused company. It is submitted that there is not even an allegation to the effect that the petitioner was responsible and incharge of the conduct of the business of the first accused company. The learned counsel would further contend that before initiating prosecution for the above said offence, previous sanction is to be obtained from the competent authority. It is contended that though the prosecution obtained sanctioned from the Joint Director of Agriculture, Cuddalore, the same was not obtained for prosecuting the petitioner herein and as such the proceedings initiated against the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there is no illegality and infirmity in the sanction accorded for prosecuting the petitioner herein. It is contended, the reading of the sanction order dated 14. 2005 shows that the Joint Director of Agriculture, Cuddalore accorded sanction to initiate prosecution against the concerned proprietors and the petitioner being the Managing Director of the first accused company is also liable to be prosecuted. Therefore, it is contended that the complaint is not liable to be quashed. .4. I have carefully considered the rival contention put forward by either side and also perused the impugned complaint and the sanction order dated 14. 2005. 5. It is sent that the petitioner has been arrayed as A-2 out of three accused and he is facing trail for the alleged offences as stated above. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is to the effect that there is no valid sanction accorded for prosecuting the petitioner herein in his individual name and as such the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance of the case. .6. In order to consider the main question involved in this case, it is relevant to refer the provision under Section 31(1) of the Insecticide Act which reads here under: .“31. .6. In order to consider the main question involved in this case, it is relevant to refer the provision under Section 31(1) of the Insecticide Act which reads here under: .“31. Cognizance and trail of offences:- (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 authorized in this behalf by the State Government.” 7. It is also relevant to refer the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Consumer Action Group v. Cadbury India Limited and Another (2000) 2 MWN (Crl) 241 in that decision the Hon’ble Apex Court has dealt with the provision contained under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act more particularly, in respect of the specific provision namely Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act dealing with the very same aspect of obtaining sanction before initiating prosecution against any person. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held in paragraph as stated below: 5. That apart, we find that when sanctioned was sought for by the appellant, the Director Health services, Trivandrum granted sanction on 21. 1990 to prosecute A-1 only. No sanction for prosecution of A-2 or A-3 was granted. How the trail Court issued process against A-2 and A-3 is not understandable. That apart, in the absence of sanction for prosecution of A-2, we fail to appreciate how A-1 could be prosecuted, in the established facts as emanating from the complaint. Before issuing process, the Court ought to have looked into all these aspects. It failed to do so. There was nothing in the complaint which could justify issuing of process against A-1, since the cash memo did not show the sale of any misbranded food article. The trail Court ought not to have taken cognizance of the complaint which did not even lay down proper factual matrix for proceeding further. The High Court, therefore, rightly quashed the complainant and the proceedings taken by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trivandrum. We uphold the order of the High Court, though for different; reasons stated herein above”. 8. It is pertinent to be noted that the provision contained under Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is similar to the provision contained under Section 31 of the Insecticides Act, relating to obtaining of sanction for initiating prosecution. 9. The perusal of the sanction order dated 14. 8. It is pertinent to be noted that the provision contained under Section 20 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act is similar to the provision contained under Section 31 of the Insecticides Act, relating to obtaining of sanction for initiating prosecution. 9. The perusal of the sanction order dated 14. 2005 in the instant case discloses that a cryptic sanction order was accorded without assigning any reason or satisfaction of the authority concerned to accord sanction to prosecute the above petition. It is further relevant to note that the contents of the sanction order itself is very vague and it is merely stated that the permission accorded to initiate proceedings against the concerned persons, there is no specific mention about the name of the company or the name of any individual persons who were holding the position of Director or Partner of the said company. 10. Rajasthan High Court in Ramesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan (1991) Crl.L.J. 2645 has held that the consent of sanction for prosecution should be by name and complaint filed against persons against whom no consent was accorded, not maintainable. This Court also taken a similar view in Managing Director, Hyderabad Chemical Supplies Limited and Another (2008) 2 MLJ (Crl) 785. 11. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court is left with no other alternative except to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in C.C.No.172 of 2005 an the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Vridhachalam. It is open to the respondent to obtain proper sanction order and to proceed in accordance with law if the respondent so desires. Accordingly, the Criminal Original petition is allowed.