B. J. SHETHNA, J. ( 1 ) THE State has preferred this appeal against the impugned judgment and order dt. 27-5-81 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Junagadh in Summary Case No 14 of 1981 whereby the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondents accused who were charged for the offences punishable u/ss. 3 17 18 and 29 (1) (a) of the Insecticides Act 1968 ( 2 ) THE learned Magistrate has acquitted the accused on the ground that the report of the Central Insecticides Laboratories has not at all been received and produced before the Court and there is gross delay and the same has at all been explained by the State agency. Therefore the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused and accordingly the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused. ( 3 ) IT is to be noted that the sample of D. D. T. 50 % was taken by the complainant on 16-8-78 which was sent by the complainant to the Junagadh Laboratory for analysis and report on 23-8-78. Thereafter a complaint was filed by the complainant against the accused before the learned J. M. F. C. Junagadh on 7-4-80 and therefore a case was ordered to be registered. On 30-7-80 again the summons was ordered to be issued and it appears from the Rojkam of this case that on 20 respondent No. 1 accused was served with the summons and in response to that summons he remained present before the Court and on his behalf an application Exh. 5 was submitted to send the sample for analysis to the Central Insecticides Laboratory and accordingly the learned Magistrate passed an order and sample was sent to the Central Insecticides Laboratory on 20 However from the Rojkam of this case it appears that the learned Magistrate adjourned the case from time to time and finally on 27-5-81 he ordered to acquit the accused on the ground that the report had not yet been received by the Court regarding the sample which was sent to the Central Insecticides Laboratory. ( 4 ) IT is surprising to note that for nearly a period of 9 months the report was not received from the Central Insecticides laboratories and the State even did not bother to give any explanation about the same that why the delay has been caused in sending the report. ( 4 ) IT is surprising to note that for nearly a period of 9 months the report was not received from the Central Insecticides laboratories and the State even did not bother to give any explanation about the same that why the delay has been caused in sending the report. Therefore the Court cannot wait for such an indefinite period for the report and therefore the learned Magistrate was right in acquitting the accused in absence of the report which ought to have been produced by the prosecution within reasonable time. ( 5 ) MR. Champaneri learned A. P. P. for the State submitted that even in the absence of the report of the Central Insecticides Laboratory the learned Magistrate ought to have convicted the accused on the report of the Junagadh Laboratory which was exhibited at Exh. 15 and the same is not even objected by the learned Advocate for the accused. It is only after the production of such the same was allowed to be exhibited. But when said document can be superseded by the subsequent report of the Central Insecticides Laboratory then in the absence of the report from Central Insecticides Laboratory the court cannot rely upon the said report from the Junagadh Laboratory for the purpose of acquitting the accused. ( 6 ) IT is the duty of the prosecution to produce the report of Central Insecticides Laboratory. In this case no attempt has been made to explain the delay and apart from explaining the delay said report is not produced at all for a period of 9 months and valuable time of the Court wasted by granting adjournments and it appears from the Rojkam that for at least 15 times the case was adjourned and therefore there was no option for the learned Magistrate but to acquit the accused as the Court cannot wait for indefinite period for the report. It is true that no specific time limit is provided u/s. 24 of the Insecticides Act 1968 that the report is to be submitted within a particular period. But that does not mean that for such a long period no report is to be sent. It is true that no specific time limit is provided u/s. 24 of the Insecticides Act 1968 that the report is to be submitted within a particular period. But that does not mean that for such a long period no report is to be sent. It should have been sent within a reasonable period and if there is any delay then at least it is the duty of the State agency to explain or bring to the notice of the Court under what circumstances the delay has been caused in submitting or preparing its report. ( 7 ) IN view of the above said discussion I do not see any reason to interfere with the acquittal order recorded by the learned Magistrate. ( 8 ) IN the result the appeal fails and dismissed. (RPV) Appeal dismissed. .