Judgment : This is an appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of A-1 to A-3 and A-17 and A-18. Originally, the case was registered against A-1 to A-18. The case against A-7, A-9 to A-11 and A-13 to A-16 was split up by the order of the court below dated 29-7-1986. A-4 to A-6, A-8 and A-12 were discharged by the order of the Court below dated 13-12-1988 and A-1 to A-3, A-17 and A-18 were tried. A-1 is the dealer firm, A-2 is the representative of A-1, A-3 is the manufacturing frim and A-17 and A-18 are the chemists of A-3. P.W. 1, the Inspector of Insecticides, inspected the shop of A-1 when A-2 was in charge of the business on 29-4-1982 at 10-30.a.m. and took the sample of Ekatox 2% dust and has sent, after following the procedure, one of the samples for the opinion of the analyst. The analyst gave a report stating that the same is misbranded. There afterwards, Al filed a petition to send the other samples for the opinion of the Central Laboratory and it was accordingly sent. Even the Central Laboratory opined that the same was misbranded. Afterwards, the complaint was filed stating that the respondents-accused are liable for punishment under section 29(1) of the Insecticides Act. The complainant examined P.P. Ws 1 to 3 and marked Ex. S.P. 1 to P. 12 Ex. P. 7 is the Panchanama, Ex. P. 8 is the notice and Ex. P. 9 is the report of the Central Laboratory while Ex.P. 10 is the sanction order to prosecute. When examined, the accused denied the offence. The Court below, after considering the entire material evidence on record, acquitted the accused on three grounds. They are : (1) The sample was not drawn properly as per the procedure. (2) The Sample was taken in a polythene bag, which is not a suitable container. (3) The analysts report was not served on all the accused. Against that, the present appeal is filed. 2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the Court below erred in acquitting the accused. There are no specified rules under the Insecticides Act, 1968. (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) prescribing the procedure as to how the sample has to be drawn. Generally, the Insecticide Inspectors will follow the procedure by taking care to draw the samples. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the Court below erred in acquitting the accused. There are no specified rules under the Insecticides Act, 1968. (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) prescribing the procedure as to how the sample has to be drawn. Generally, the Insecticide Inspectors will follow the procedure by taking care to draw the samples. The said method is quite proper when there is no specified method prescribed under the Act. The learned Counsel, Shri, C. Padmanabha Reddy, contended that as per S. 21 (I)(e) of the Act, the Inspector shall take the sample and send it to an analyst for test in the prescribed manner. He further contended that no procedure is prescribed under the Rules as to how to take the sample. In the absence of it, the procedure prescribed by the "Methods for Sampling of Pesticidal Formulations" give out by the Indian Standards Institution applies for taking of a sample by the Insecticides Inspectors. In this case, the Insecticides Inspector himself admitted that he had not followed the said methods. Further, P.W. 2 had stated that the sample was taken by hand. Thus, the procedure prescribed was not followed. 3. In view of the rival contentions, it has to be decided whether, in the absence of a provision in the Act and the Rules made there under regarding the procedure for taking samples, the Methods for Sampling of Pesticidal formulations given out by the Indian Standards Institution applies. Para 2.0 of the said Methods says that in drawing, preparing, storing and handling test samples, the following precautions and directions shall be observed : "2.1 Samples shall be either taken or stored at a place exposed to such weather as would effect basic change in its characteristics. 2.2 Precuations shall be taken or stored at a place exposed to such weather as would effect basic change in its characteristics. 2.2 Precuations shall be taken to portect the samples, the sampling instrument and the containers for samples from adventitious contamination. 2.3 The sampling instrument shall be made of glass or a metal on which the material has no action and shall be clean and dry when used. 2.4 The sample containers shall be of such a size that they are almost but not completely filled by the sample. They shall be clean, dry. 2.3 The sampling instrument shall be made of glass or a metal on which the material has no action and shall be clean and dry when used. 2.4 The sample containers shall be of such a size that they are almost but not completely filled by the sample. They shall be clean, dry. leakproof and be made of the material which shall not react with the contents of the sample. 2.5 Once the container is opened, care shall be taken to avoid the risk of deterioration of contents due to the presence of various factors, such as air light and moisture. 2.6 Each sample container shall be sealed airtight after filling and marked with full details of sample such as date of manufacture, date of sampling, name of the manufacturer and other parriculars of the consignment. 2.1 The sample or its container shall be marked to indicate the nature of the material and the risks associated with it, whenever necessary. 2.7 The sampler should always be alert for possible biases arising from the use of a particular sampling device or from the segregation of material. 2.8 Before drawing the test samples, contents of each container selected for sampling be, as for as possible, throughly mixed by suitable means. 2.9 In the case of liquid formulations the proper selection of a representative sample involves a consideration of the physical laws of liquids, their chemical activity, the miscibility of all constitutents and the interference of any insoluable materials carried by the liquid. 2.10 Avoid ignition of the material from open flames or sparks produced by static electricity or by metal equipment or tools. 2.11 The operator shall have seen access to and from the place where the sample is to be taken. He shall also have a safe working place with necessary light and ventilation. 2.12 The person taking the sample shall be made fully aware of the nature of the hazards involved and precautions to be taken including those prescribed in IS : 4015 (part 1) 1967 Guide for handling cases of pesticide poisoning : Part 1 First aid and measures and IS : 4015 (part 2) 1969 Guide for handling cases of pesticide poisoning : Part 2 Symptoms diagnosis and treatment. In the case of toxic nature of material, he should he instructed that in the event of his feeling unwell he should immediately report to the concerned authorities for medical attention. 2.13 The operator engaged in sampling should have clean hands. It may be essential for the operator to wear clean gloves to safeguard against health or other hazards. 2.14. In the case of those formulations which change shape according to temperature, the material may have to be heated to a suitable temperature to bring it into the liquid state from the solid or cooled to a suitable temperature to bring it to solid crystalline state." Para 3 of the said Methods deals with Sampling Implements. Paras 3.0 to 1.2, being relevant, are extracted below. 3.0 Thefollowing sampling implements are recommended. 3.1 Formulations in Solid Form Generally a scop is recommended. 3.1.1 Design and construction of Scoop-General design of common scoop is shown in Fig. 1. These are normally made of mild steel, but in Special cases where the material reacts with steel, the scoop made of any resistant steel (for Example stainless steel) or plastic can be used. 3.1.2 procedure Dip a scoop of suitable size into the material at an angle, preferable diagonal (but not vertical), at the required spot, withdrop and level off the material with a levelling rod so that the material is not above the sides of the scoop. Transfer the sample drawn into a suitable sample container." 4. Thus, the above para specifically prescribes that the sample must be taken with scoop as prescribed and not otherwise. Further the said methods prescribe that the sample must be taken in a suitable container us mentioned therein and they also prescribe the procedure as to how the said sample has to he taken, namely, that the Inspector has to dip the scoop at an angle, preferable diagonal (but not vertical), at the required spot, withdraw and level off the material with a levelling rod so that the material is not above the sides of the scoop and then transfer the same into a suitable sample container. Thus, specific procedure is prescribed under the above methods. The Insecticides Inspector, P.W. 1, admitted that he had not followed the said procedure thinking that it was not applicable. This Court, in State v. EID Parry Limited (1) 1982 (1) APLJ Shortnotes P.41 held as follows : "Rule 24, Cl. Thus, specific procedure is prescribed under the above methods. The Insecticides Inspector, P.W. 1, admitted that he had not followed the said procedure thinking that it was not applicable. This Court, in State v. EID Parry Limited (1) 1982 (1) APLJ Shortnotes P.41 held as follows : "Rule 24, Cl. 2 of the Insecticides Rules prescribes the same procedure as prescribed by the Indian Standard Institute for analysis of insecticides. The sampling techniques adopted by the Insepector are repugnant to the standards and procedure prescribed by the Indian Standard Institute. Hence the acquittal is justified." 5. Under R. 24(2) of the Insecticides Rules, the procedure prescribed is the same as prescribed by the Indian Standards Institute for analysis of insecticides. So, the sampling technique adopted by the Inspectors should also be in the manner as prescribed by the Indian Standards Institution. In this case, as P.W. 1 himself had admitted, the prescribed procedure was not followed. Further, P.W. 2 deposed that the sample was taken by hand by the Inspector. Thus, there is a violation of the procedure prescribed by the Indian Standards Institution which has been held applicable. Therefore, on this ground itself, the respondents are entitled for acquittal. In view of that, I need not decide the other grounds. It must also be mentioned here that the Department dealing with the administration of the Act must instruct its Inspectors in charge of taking the samples to follow the procedure prescribed by the Indian Standards Institution for taking of the sample and sending the same for analysis, until some procedure is prescribed by the Rules framed under the Act. 6. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed Appeal dismissed.