JUDGMENT 1. - This Misc. Petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code has been moved by four petitioners before me for quashing proceedings pending against them in the court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, First Class Pili Banga, District Sri Ganganagar, for the offence under verious provisions of the Insecticides Act, 1968. The proceedings are challenged on certain legal grounds and for appreciating the arguments, certain facts may first be looked into. The petitioner No. 2 is the proprietor of M/s. Agarwal Khad Bhandar (petitioner No. I) and has a shop at Coluwala, District Sri Ganganagar. The petitioner of No. 3 is the Sales Manager of M/s. Pesticides India of which the proprietor is Mewar Oil and Ganeral Mills, Udaipur and petitioner No. 4 was the Production Manager. 2. On 9th December, 1980 a sample of Insecticides Chlordene Dust was purchased from the shop of petitioner No. 1, Agarwal Khad Bnandar, by the Insecticides Inspector. The date of manufacturing of the insecticide as mentioned in the memo is 12th November. 1980 and the expiry date is 11th November, 1982. The sample was sent for analysis to the Insecticides Analyst on 18th December, 1980. The report of the Insecticides Analyst was prepared on 17th March, 1981 and according to the report, the sample was found to be misbranded. On 26th March, 1951 the District Agriculture Officer sent a copy of the report to M/s. Agarwal Khad Bhandar, Coluwala. 3. Sanction for prosecution was obtained from the Deputy Director, Plant Protection, Rajasthan, Jaipur and he gave permission to prosecute Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal, proprietor of M/s. Agarwal Khad Bhandar and M. Yusuf, Production Manager of M/s. Pesticides India. This sanction is dated 18th October, 1982 and the complaint was filed on 20th October. 1982. In this complaint four accused have been shown, who are the petitioners in the present petition. 4. It may also be mentioned that the learned Magistrate, before whom the complaint was presented ordered by his order dated 20th October, 1982 to summon the accused but the office did not issue the notices for one full year. 5. 1982. In this complaint four accused have been shown, who are the petitioners in the present petition. 4. It may also be mentioned that the learned Magistrate, before whom the complaint was presented ordered by his order dated 20th October, 1982 to summon the accused but the office did not issue the notices for one full year. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that under Section 24(3) of the Insecticides Act, the accused has a right to get the sample reanalysed but in this case the notices were issued to the petitioners after passing of the expiry date of the insecticide, which had been analysed and as such, their right to get the sample re-analysed has been denied and the proceedings deserve to be quashed. Another contention is that sanction for prosecution has been given only for two accused namely Raj Kumar, proprietor of M/s. Agarwal Khad Bhandar and M. Yusuf, Production Manager of M/s. Pesticides India but these two persons were not supplied with a copy of the Insecticides Analyst and for other two petitioners, there is no sanction of the competent authority for prosecution. Raliance has been placed on M/s. Artee Minerals and Anr. v. State and Anr., 1992 Cr LR (Raj) 59 which is a case similar to the present one and it was held that where the date of expiry of the sample expired before re-analysis then the right of the accused to apply to get it analysed is denied and the proceedings deserve to be quashed. To the similar effect is U.S. Madan v. State, 1991 Cr LR (Raj) 799 and S.K. Ahuja v. State of Raj. and Others, 1991 RCC 254 . 6. The learned Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State has not been able to advance any argument to rebut the contentions of the petitioners. 7. The delayed prosecution has frustrated the very purpose for which the Insecticides Act has been framed. When the insecticides has already been sold and a period of over two years is taken to commence the prosecution then the relief which ought to have been given to the consumers becomes meaning less as the misbranded item has already been used. Moreover, the accused have been denied to get the sample re-analysed and when this right is denied then the prosecution cannot continue 8. Moreover, the accused have been denied to get the sample re-analysed and when this right is denied then the prosecution cannot continue 8. Under Section 33 of the Insecticides Act, it has been provided that whenever an offence under this Act has been committed by a Company, every person who at the time the offence was committed was in charge of, or was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. When company and person both can be prosecuted than sanction for the prosecution is to be very specific alongwith syllables that the particular parson is incharge or responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. The sanctioning authority has not considered this aspect in sanctioning the prosecution. The complaint also does not disclose as on what basis the petitioners Nos. 2 and 4 are proceeded against. There ought to have been specific sanction for the prosecution of petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 also besides mentioning the Pesticides India as an accused. All these formalities have not been followed and the result is that the prosecution deserves to be quashed for denying the right of the accused under section 24(3) of the Insecticides Act. The petition is allowed and the proceedings against the petitioners pending before the Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Pili Banga, District Sri Ganganagar are quashed *******