Honble SAXENA, J. – In the afore mentioned petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. common points of law arise, as such those are being disposed of by this common order. Now briefly, the relevant facts- (A) Petition No. 865/94 (2). M/s Gupta Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. petitioner No. 1 is private limited company engaged in manufacturing insecticides and pesticides. B.L. Gupta (petitioner No. 2) is its Managing Director whereas P.N. Gupta and J.K. Gupta (petitioner Nos. 3 & 4 respectively) are its Directors and P.K. Gupta (petitioner No.5) is its Dy. General Manager Quality Control as also the notified person u/s 33 (1) the Insecticide Act, 1968 (in short ``the Act) responsible to the conduct of business of the petitioner Company. (3). On 17.3.93 Radhey Shyam Insecticides Inspector, Jaipur took samples of four products including that of Methyl Parathion 2% D.P. from the premises of petitioner Company. Samples of each insecticides were divided into three parts. Two parts were retained by the Inspector and third part was handed over to petitioner No.4. On 18/3/93, the said Inspector sent the sample to the Central Insecticides Laboratory. Faridabad (CIL). Sample of other three products were found according to ISI specifications. However, the Senior Scientific Officer (Chem) C.I.L. vide his report dated 13/5/93 opined that the sample of methly para- thion 2% DP did not conform to the relevant ISI specification in its active ingredient content requirement and as such the same was deemed to be misbranded u/s 3(k) of the Act. It may be mentioned here that sample of methyl parathion, which was taken by the said Inspector, was manufactured in November, 1992 and its self life was to expire in April, 1994. On receipt of the report of the CIL, the Insecticides Ins- pector issued a show cause notice dated 1/6/1993 to petitioner Company. Thereupon the petitioner Company vide its letter dated 14/6/93 requested the Insecticides Inspector to produce sample of insecticide before the learned Magistrate under Section 22 (6) of the Act for being sent for test or analysis to the CIL different from one in which it was analysed. The petitioner company also filed an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.12, Jaipur City under Section 24(3) of the Act praying that the sample be sent to other CIL for re analysis, which was rejected vide order dated 7/7/93. (4). On 15/1/94 Jt. The petitioner company also filed an application before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.12, Jaipur City under Section 24(3) of the Act praying that the sample be sent to other CIL for re analysis, which was rejected vide order dated 7/7/93. (4). On 15/1/94 Jt. Director Agriculture (Plant Protection) Rajasthan Jaipur accorded sanction for prosecution against all the petitioners under Section 29(1)(a) of the Act. On 22/2/94, the Insecticides Inspector submitted criminal complaint under Section 29(1)(a) of the Pesticides Act, 1968 (which in fact should have been the Insecticides Act, 1968) in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.12, Jaipur City and on the same day the learned Magistrate took cognizance against all the petitioners and issued summons directing them to appear before him on 25/4/94. However, the petitioners after service of summons appeared before him sometime in October, 1994. (B) Facts of Cr. Misc. Petition No. 687/95 (5). The status of the petitioners in this case are similar as enumerated in Cr.Misc. Petition No. 865/94. On 30/3/92 Shyam Behari Upman, Insecticides Inspec tor, Jaipur Division Jaipur, took sample of Methyl Parathion 50% Ex and Cypermethrin 10% Ex, which were divided into three parts. Two parts were retained by the Inspector, while third one was handed over to Arvind Bhatnagar, employee of the petitioner company. That product of Cypermethrin 10% EC was manufactured in August, 1990 and its self life was to expire in July 1992. On 31.3.92, samples were sent to the C.I.L. Faridabad for analysis. As per report of CIL dated 28.5.1992, sample of Cypermethrin 10% EC was not found duly conformed to relevant ISI specifications in the active ingredient content requirement and as such, the same was opined to be misbranded. On 11/6/1992, a show cause notice was sent to the petitioner Company. The petitioner Company vide its letter dated 19/6/1992 replied to the show cause notice intimating the Insecticides Inspector that the report of CIL was vague and incomplete and requested that counter sample of that product be re-analysed as per provisions of the Act by referee methods so as to protect its right. No action was taken on the request of the petitioner Company. On the other hand, on 30/12/1992, sanction for prosecution under Section 29(1) (a) of the Act was acco- rded by the Jt. No action was taken on the request of the petitioner Company. On the other hand, on 30/12/1992, sanction for prosecution under Section 29(1) (a) of the Act was acco- rded by the Jt. Director Agriculture (Plant Protection) Rajasthan Jaipur against all the petitioners and ultimately on 10/2/1993, a criminal complaint was filed against them after the expiry of the self life of the sample in question. The learned Magistrate took cognizance against all the petitioners and they appeared in that court some time in October.1993. (6). It appears that the petitioners filed Criminal Misc. Petition No. 438/94, u/s 482 Cr.P.C. in this Court, wherein on 25/8/94 the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he wanted to withdraw the said petition because he would raise objections enumerated in that petition before the learned trial Magistrate and, therefore, the said petition was not decided on merits and dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, the petitioners filed application dated 18/10/94 before the learned Magistrate raising various objections regarding maintainability of the criminal complaint against them who vide his order dated 4/5/95 rejected that application. (7). I have heard Shri T.C. Jain, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri S.K. Chakravarti learned Public Prosecutor at length and carefully perused the rele- vant record produced alongwith these petitions. (8). Shri Jain strenuously contended that admittedly, samples of insecticides were directly sent to the CIL and were not sent to the insecticide analyst in the first instance and that the request of the petitioner Company to re-analyse counter parts of the samples from a different CIL was rejected and as such the valuable right con- ferred on the petitioners under Section 24(4) of the Act has been violated and that on this ground alone continuance of criminal prosecution against them amounts to abuse of process of court. For this, he has relied upon Hindustan Ciba Geigy Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan (1), wherein after considering and interpreting relevation provisions of the Act and the Insecticides Rules, this Court has held that the Insec- ticides Inspectoris duty bound to send samples of the insecticides for its test or analysis to the Insecticides Analyst only and that he is not authorised or empowered to send the samples for its test or analysis directly to the CIL because as per the provisions of Section 24(4) of the Act, powers to send second portion of the sample for re-analysis to the CIL is given to the Court, where the criminal proceedings are pending. It has further been held that if the sample is directly sent by the Insecticides Inspector and got analysed from the CIL then the accused persons facing prosecution under the provisions of the Act shall be deprived of their valuable right to controvert the analysts report by getting other portion of the sample tested or re-analysed from the CIL. It was also pointed out that the State of Rajasthan has already declared the Assistant Agricultural Chemist (Quality Control) Durgapura, Jaipur, as Insecticide Analyst under Section 19 of the Act. Therefore, in such circumstances, it was the bounden duty of the Insecticide Inspector to send the sample for test or analysis to the State Insecticide Analyst in the first instance. This Court by invoking its inherent powers quashed the proceedings against accused petitioners. (9). In the cases on hand, admittedly, the Insecticide Inspector has directly sent the samples of the insecticide products in question for test or analysis to the CIL and has thus frustrated and defeated the intent and purpose of Section 24(4) of the Act, which confers an important and valuable right to the accused to get counter sample further tested or analysed in the CIL. In such circumstances, these criminal complaints filed against petitioners suffer from patent inherent and legal infirmity and dragging the prosecution against them would clearly amount to abuse of process of the Court and on this ground alone, criminal proceedings initiated against them deserve to be quashed. (10). The prosecution sanctions against petitioners are also not legal and valid. In such circumstances, these criminal complaints filed against petitioners suffer from patent inherent and legal infirmity and dragging the prosecution against them would clearly amount to abuse of process of the Court and on this ground alone, criminal proceedings initiated against them deserve to be quashed. (10). The prosecution sanctions against petitioners are also not legal and valid. A bare perusal of the sanction for prosecution under Section 29(1)(a) of the Act accorded by competent authority reveal that those neither contain the facts consti tuting offence nor grounds of satisfaction nor those show that all the relevant facts were placed before the sanctioning authority and that satisfaction was arrived at by that authority for according sanction for prosecution against the petitioners. (11). In Mohd.Iqbal Ahmed vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2). legality and validity of sanction for prosecution under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was involved. The Apex Court held that it was incumbent on the prosecution to prove that a valid sanction has been accorded by the sanctioning authority after it was satisfied that the case for sanction had been made out constituting offence. It was observed that this could be done in two ways either by producing the original sanction which itself contained the facts constituting the offence and the grounds of satisfaction or by adducing evidence aliunde to show that all relevant facts were placed before the Sanctioning Authority and that such a prosecution sanction was not given mechanically. In that case, the prosecution sanction was found to be lacking all those ingredients and the same was held to be invalid. (12). In the case on hand, the prosecution sanctions on their face value show that those have been passed mechanically and without application of mind of the competent authority. Hence those do not appear to be valid sanctions. (13). In the Cr. Misc. Petition No.687/95, the shelf life of the insecticide products in question had admittedly expired in July, 1992 while the criminal complaint has been filed against the petitioners as late as on 10/2/94 depriving their valuable right to get re-analysed the second sample from any other CIL. Hence those do not appear to be valid sanctions. (13). In the Cr. Misc. Petition No.687/95, the shelf life of the insecticide products in question had admittedly expired in July, 1992 while the criminal complaint has been filed against the petitioners as late as on 10/2/94 depriving their valuable right to get re-analysed the second sample from any other CIL. The learned Judicial Magistrate while taking cognizance against the petitioners in this case ought to have taken into consideration this material and important fact that criminal complaint was filed much after the expiry of the shelf life of the product in question and, therefore, in this case, the order of taking cognizance against the petitioners in tantamount to the abuse of process of the court and the same can not be sustained. (14). Besides this, in both criminal complaints, there is neither any averment nor any indication as to in what manner, petitioner Nos.2 & 3, who are the Directors of the petitioner Company, were responsible for the conduct of the business of the said Company. On the other hand, the Jt. Director Agriculture (Plant Protection) Jaipur vide his letter dated 30/8/89 had already informed all the Insecticide Inspectors of the State about persons responsible u/s 33 (c) of the Act to the conduct of business in respect of various Companies engaged/dealing in manufacturing, sale and distribution of the insecticides. In that letter, it was specifically mentioned that for M/s Gupta Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (Petitioner Company) Shri P.K. Gupta (petitioner No.4) was the person responsible for its conduct of the business for prosecution of the Company. Therefore, in such circumstances, the criminal complaints in both the cases against petitioners Nos.2 and 3 i.e. B.L. Gupta and P.N Gupta respectively are also legally not maintainable. (15). Hence refracted from any angle, continuance of criminal proceedings against all petitioners in these cases are in contravention of the provisions of the Act which amount to abuse of process of the Court. The result of the above discu- ssion is that these petitions are allowed and the criminal proceedings in Cr. Case Nos. 330/93 and 85/94 against the petitioners pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.12, Jaipur City are hereby quashed.