JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal misc. petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is for quashing the proceedings pending in cr. case No. 357/85 before Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bandikui, (District Jaipur) for the alleged offences punishable under Section 29 (1) (i) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, (for brevity, the Act'). 2. Admitted facts are that petitioner, S.K. Ahuja, on July 16, 1983, was working as Regional Technical Manager in a public limited Company-Bayer (India) Ltd., having registered office at Express Towers. Nariman Point, Bombay and branch office at 56. Jan Path, New Delhi. The Bayer (India) Ltd., has its factory at Thane in State of Maharashtra Manufacturing pesticides known as Follidol Dust, having a valid registration of manufacturing licence under the Act, and the Company sells its products from Bombay throughout India. 3. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that on July 10, 1985, a complaint was filed by the Insecticide Inspector, Dy. District Agriculture Office, Dausa, in the Court of Munsiff & Judicial Magistrate, Bandi Kui. It had been alleged in the complaint that on 16.7.83, the Inspector (Insecticide) Sub-Division, Dausa inspected the shop of Gorla Fertilisers, Raj Bazar, Bindi Kui, whereupon Suresh Chandra Sharma was sitting and he was present as its Proprietor & owner. Suresh Chand was informed of taking sample of BHC 10% dust & Follidol 2% dust vide Form No. XII. The samples were taken and sealed allegedly according to the rules, and sent for analysis to Assistant Agriculture Chemist, State Pesticide Testing Laboratory, Durgapura on July 28, 1983 who sent his report on September 1, 1983 and according to the report, the sample of follidol 2% did not confirm to I.S. specification No. 8960-1978 inactive ingredient hence misbranded. A show cause notice was also sent on 8.11.83 by the Department of Agriculture to the seller M/s Gorla Fertilisers. Bandikui, Dealer M/s Shri Agro Agencies, Sabzi Mandi, Jaipur and the Manufacturer M/s Bayer (India) Ltd., Bombay for selling, stocking, and manufacturing misbranded drug. Sanction for launching prosecution against the seller, dealer and manufacturer was accorded under Section 31(1) of the Act by the Joint Director (Plant Protection), Directorate Agriculture, Jaipur, for offence under Section 29(1)(a) punishable under Section 29(1)(i) of the Act. 4. Petitioner, Regional Technical Manager, Bayer (India) Ltd. manufacturing Company of the Follidol dust, was directed to appear in the Court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Bundi, on August 7, 1989. 4. Petitioner, Regional Technical Manager, Bayer (India) Ltd. manufacturing Company of the Follidol dust, was directed to appear in the Court of Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Bundi, on August 7, 1989. Hence this criminal misc. petition. 5. The case of the petitioner is that the samples were manufactured by the Company on February 18, 1983 with its expiry date 17.8.1984, and were taken by the Insecticide Inspector on July 16, 1983 by which the complaint was filed on 10.7.1985 in the Court whereas the samples were sent for analysis on July 28, 1983, the petitioner has been summoned in August, 1989-that too after the expiry of the product in question. Taking the aid of the above circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that undoubtedly, due to the delay on the part of the prosecution in filing the complaint the right conferred upon the petitioner under Sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the Act has become illusory and meaningless, and that apart, from the allegations made in the complaint it is obvious that the prosecution has based its case solely on the report of Insecticide Analyst purported to have been given under Section 24 of the Act. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 24 of the Act. Section 24 (1) provides that within a period of sixty days the Insecticide Analyst shall deliver to the Insecticide Inspector submitting it a signed report in duplicate in the prescribed form; and under subsection (2) of Section 24, the Insecticide Inspector on receipt thereof shall deliver one copy of the report to the person from whom the sample was taken and shall retain the other copy for use in any prosecution in respect of the sample. According to sub-section (3) of Section 24 of the Act, unless person from whom the sample was taken has, within 28 days of the receipt of a copy of the report notified in writing the Insecticide Inspector or the Court that he intends to lead evidence for controverting the report, the report shall be conclusive evidence. 7. According to sub-section (3) of Section 24 of the Act, unless person from whom the sample was taken has, within 28 days of the receipt of a copy of the report notified in writing the Insecticide Inspector or the Court that he intends to lead evidence for controverting the report, the report shall be conclusive evidence. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that Section 24 does not require that a copy of Insecticide Analyst report should be given to the manufacturer from whom the sample was not drawn thereby, it does not give any opportunity to the manufacturer to controvert the report, inasmuch as, according to sub section (3) of Section 24, if the report is not controverted by the dealer from whom the sample was taken, the report becomes conclusive evidence in the trial and therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, such provisions having loopholes are against well canons of criminal jurisprudence and in any event, the report cannot be made conclusive against the manufacturer. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner added that though the Insecticide Inspector issued a notice dated the 8th November, 1983 but the manufacturer did and could not get any opportunity to controvert the Insecticide Analyst's report or send the sample to the Central Insecticide Laboratory because that could be possible only under Section 24 (4) of the Act when the petitioner could been made an accused person, inasmuch as the notice does not give any opportunity to controvert the Report. 9. It has not been disputed that the sample was not taken from the manufacturer but was taken from the dealer who is co-accused. In this view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the important valuable right of having got the sample analysed under sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Act so as to rebut the presumption, has been taken away and frustrated, thereby, it would be a futile exercise to continue the prosecution because, no conviction can succeed so far as the present petitioner is concerned. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the decisions of the various High Courts including that of Bombay, Gujarat. Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan. In particular, a reference was made to the decision of this Court in S.K. Ahuja & anr. v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Cr. Misc. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the decisions of the various High Courts including that of Bombay, Gujarat. Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan. In particular, a reference was made to the decision of this Court in S.K. Ahuja & anr. v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 19/86 & No 116/86 decided on 19.11.1986). In the above cited decision of this Court, learned brother Judge, as he then was, followed the view taken by Bombay. Gujarat & Andhra Pradesh High Courts, viz. (1) M/s S.M.P. Pvt. Ltd. v. State (1981 Cr.L.J. 764) -Andhra Pradesh High Court) (2) Baldeoji Prishnaji v. State of Gujarat (1973 Cr. L.J. 1523) -Gujarat High Court (3) Municipal Corpn. v. Gheesa Ram ( AIR 1967 SC 970 ) In the referred cases (supra), it was held that the right of accused to get sample examined by the Director of Central Insecticide Laboratory is valuable and if there is any inordinate delay in prosecution on account of which the sample become decomposed and impossible for analysis then the accused is deprived of a valuable right and conviction cannot be sustained. 10. The learned Public Prosecutor tried to defend the prosecution on the ground that although manufacturer was not intimated nor was he given the sample report but the dealer who represents the manufacturer was given the sample and the dealer had communicated it to the manufacturer and that, the manufacturer was knowing the prosecution though formal set vice was affected lateron. 11. Having considered the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor, in my opinion, whatever the circumstances of the case may be, it all depend upon the knowledge of the accused either by some correspondence between the dealer & the manufacturer or on account of earlier sending of summons without a copy of the complaint and return of it without service. 12. Having benefited by the enlightments derived from the above cited decisions, it is fortified that in criminal prosecution heavy burden lies on the prosecution and, therefore, even for the purposes of service of summons or notices or warrants the prosecution must take due care that they are served on the accused because the result of it can be issue of non-bailable warrant and ultimately, after prosecution one can be convicted. That being so, I am declined lo give any benefit to the prosecution of the alleged knowledge of the manufacturer. The fundamental principle laid down in the above cited decisions is that of course, under sub section (2) of Section 24, there is no obligation on the Insecticide Inspector to supply a copy of the report of the Analyst to the manufacturer of the insecticide but if the manufacturer of insecticide is sought to be prosecuted, there is no reason why a copy of the report should not be supplied to him. The object of making the provision for delivery of the copy of the report is to give an opportunity to the person concerned to controvert the report in case he is prosecuted. Therefore, irrespective of the provision contained in sub section (2), the ends of justice demands that the person who is sought to be prosecuted, must be supplied with a copy of the report. That apart, a bare reading of Section 24 particularly clause 3 & 4 together clearly shows that since the accused only appears and the manufacturer becomes the accused when he appears earlier the sample or the material were not purchased and taken from him, therefore, he only gets the knowledge or the right to apply or get the samples for analysis on the date when he appears at the earliest. If on the date when the expiry date of the drug or the material whatever may be, has already expired then his right is certainly denied and in the absence of that his prosecution cannot ultimately result is conviction. 13. Similarly, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sections 18, 23 & 25 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act provide for disclosure of the names of the manufacturer and supply of a copy to the manufacturer an opportunity is given to the manufacturer to controvert the report as provided in Sections 23 & 24 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rule 9 of the Rules framed thereunder for similar safeguard. 14. It is significant to note that though the Insecticides Act is analogous to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Drug and Cosmetics Act such safeguards are not provided and equal opportunities are not afforded to the dealer & manufacturers for insecticides. 14. It is significant to note that though the Insecticides Act is analogous to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Drug and Cosmetics Act such safeguards are not provided and equal opportunities are not afforded to the dealer & manufacturers for insecticides. Moreover, the use of such a provision is mades in this manner where the acts and omissions of the prosecution witnesses arc made effective adversely on the accused persons. 15. As already stated, undisputedly and significantly, the Insecticide Inspector filed the complaint about two years after the samples were taken from the dealer. The samples were taken of pesticides on 16.7.1983 while the complaint was filed on 10-7-1985 and the manufacturer was summoned in August, 1989 more than six years after the samples of pesticides were taken. Undisputedly, the samples which were taken and purchased from the dealer in the present case, were manufactured by the petitioner's Company on February 18, 1983 with its expiry date 17-8-1984 and in other words, the pesticides remains effective fora maximum period of one year front the date of its manufacture In the instant case, the petitioner learnt about his prosecution only after the process was served on him in August, 1989 and till then the samples taken by the Inspector were more than six years old and having become ineffective after expiry of one year from the date of its manufacture. Therefore, no useful purpose could have been served even if the petitioner would have been permitted to get the sample sent to the Director, Central Insecticide Laboratory under sub-Section (4) of Section 24 of the Insecticide Act. In these circumstances, the petitioner has been denied the opportunity to controvert the correctness of the report of the Analyst on which the prosecution is based, and thereby it warrants interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in order to prevent the abuse of the process of Court and further to secure the ends of justice, because the learned subordinate court failed to consider the significant aspect of the matter before issuing process against the petitioner. It is precisely clear that the petitioner was to appear to face the complaint only after the expiry date of both the samples products was already over, moreover when the product which was manufactured by the petitioner's Company has lost its efficacy, and virtually the petitioner was restrained from controverting the correctness of the report of the analyst, on account of the delayed prosecution which denied the petitioner an opportunity of sending a sample to the Central Laboratory whose finding is final. 16. Before parting with the judgment, I observe that it is only due to laches on the part of the prosecuting complainant the delay has taken pi ice and if the matter could have been pursued immediately and a complaint filed immediately the controversy would not have arisen So, the Inspectors of Insecticides who are at the helm of affairs have to note that whenever they fake the samples they must pursue the case and see that the complaints are filed within time to enable all the accused to get the sample analysed before the due date is expired. 17. Keeping in view the law laid down in the above cited decisions apart from the crucial facts and circumstances of the case, referred to above, as the petitioner was summoned after the date of expiry of the sample after inordinate delay of six years and he having been deprived of the right to get the sample reanalysed, and in my opinion, to allow the trial of the petitioner to proceed would amount to an abuse of the process of Court, therefore, the proceedings pending before the trial Court qua the petitioner must be quashed in order to secure the ends of justice. The proceedings launched against the petitioner (S. K. Abuja) under Section 29(1)(a) read with Section 3 (k) of the Act in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bandikui in Cr. Case No. 357/85 are hereby quashed. The name of the petitioner in the complaint has thus obviously to be treated as non-existent for the view taken above. 18. For reasons stated (supra), this cr. misc. petition is allowed but to the extent aforesaid.Petition Allowed. *******