JUDGMENT 1. The accused petitioners, who were the manufacturers and dealers of misbranded insecticide, have approached this Court under Section 482 Cr.RC. with the prayer to quash pending proceedings against him in Criminal Case NO. 275/1991 in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Chomu under Section 29(1)(a) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). The petitioners 1 to 3 are the dealers from whom the sample of the Insecticide known as "Phorate 10% Gr." was taken by the Insecticide Inspector Harnath Singh on June 15, 1989. In order to appreciate the controversy raised before me necessary relevant 'acts, In brief, may be given, which are as under: 2. The Insecticide Inspector, namely, Shri Hamath Singh visited the business premises of M/s. Sharda Agro Service Centre, Chomu on June 15, 1989 and in exercise of powers conferred on him under Section 21(1) of the Act, he took sample of insecticide "Phorate 10% Gr." The sample was taken from petitioner No. 5 Shri A.K. Sharda who is said to be the proprietor of M/s. Sharda Agro Service Centre. After performing necessary formalities the Insecticide Inspector restored one part of the sample to the person from whom the sample was taken. One part of the sample was sent to the Insecticide Analyst I.e. State Pesticide Testing Laboratory, Durgapura, Jaipur for testing. The third part of the sample was produced in the court of the concerned Magistrate before whom proceedings were initiated in respect of the Insecticide. As per Insecticide Analyst's report dated 12th July, 1989 the sample was found to be misbranded as it did not conform to the prescribed specification. After receipt of the report of Insecticide Analyst's report upon the dealer in 15th September, 1989. From the record it appears that similar notice with a copy of Insecticide Analyst's report, was sent to the Manufacturer i.e. M/s. Artee Minerals Agro Chemical Division, Delhi by registered post on 14th December, 1990. After obtaining the requisite consent under Section 31(1) of the Act, the complaint was filed in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate. Chomu on 27th March, 1991 and the same is pending in the said court for trial. In the meantime, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing present petition under Section 482 Cr.RC. with the prayer to quash the proceedings. 3. The only contention raised by Mr. Chomu on 27th March, 1991 and the same is pending in the said court for trial. In the meantime, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing present petition under Section 482 Cr.RC. with the prayer to quash the proceedings. 3. The only contention raised by Mr. J.K. Singhi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, in support of the petitioner is that the complaint was filed in the instant case on 27th March, 1991, i.e. much after the self-life period of the insecticide which was April, 1990. According to the learned counsel, by Inordinate delay in launching the prosecution, the petitioners have been deprived of their valuable right to get another sample re-analysed in the Central Insecticide Laboratory (CIL) under Section 24(3) and 24(4) of the Act. Mr. Singhi also contended that so far the manufacturing firm and its partners are concerned, they were sent show cause notice alongwith a copy of the report on 14th December, 1990 which was after the expiry of self-life period of the insecticide and as such, the manufacturer and its partners had no occasion to get the second sample re-examined in the CIL within the life period of the insecticide. For the dealer firm and its proprietor It was contended that they received a copy of Analyst's report on 15th September, 1989 and within 28 days of receipt of the copy, they notified their intention to adduce evidence in contravention to the report of Analyst by getting another sample re-tested/re-analysed in the CIL. In support of his contentions Mr. Singhi referred to certain judgments of this Court and another High Courts namely; S.K. Ahuja v. State of Rajaathan & Others, [1990 Cr.LR (Raj.) 701] , U.S. Madan v. State, [1991 Cr.LR (Raj.) 799] ; M/s. Artee Minerals & Anr. v. State and Another, [1992 Cr.LR (Raj.) 59] ; Agarwal Khand Bhandar v. State of Rajasthan, [1993 Cr.LR (Raj.) 510] and Hindustan Ciba-Geigy Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Raj. & Ors., [1995(1) WLC (Raj.) 124] . 4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor, after seeing the record of trial court and reply filed by non- petitioner 2, is not in position to dispute the fact that the manufacturing firm was served with a copy of the report of the Insecticide Analyst alongwith a show cause notice which was sent to it by registered post on 14th December, 1990. However, so far the dealer is concerned, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that petitioners No. 4 and 5 did not notify their intention to adduce evidence In contravention of the report by getting another sample re-tested or re-analysed in the CIL within 28 days of receipt of the report, in as much as, the copy of the letter dated 10th October, 1989 was delivered on 26th October, 1989, which Is borne out from the reply of non-petitioner No. 2 submitted before this Court and the photostat copy of the letter dated 10th October, 1989 having a note of its receipt on 26th October, 1989. The learned Public Prosecutor, therefore, contended that as petitioners 4 and 5 have failed to notify their Intention to adduce evidence within 28 days as required under Section 24(3) of the Act, the report of the Insecticide Analyst became conclusive In evidence against them and they cannot raise any grievance by the mere fact of delay in launching prosecution as they have no right to get the sample re-analysed through the court when they have failed to notify their intention within the prescribed period as required under Section 24(3) of the Act. 5. I have given my careful consideration to the above submissions. In another case (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 556/1995, M/s. Bharat Insecticides Ltd. v. State and Others.) I have an occasion to interpret section 24 and examine its impact on criminal proceedings in respect of the right of an accused to get another sample re-tested or re-analysed in the CIL. After considering various provisions and scheme of the Act, it was held by me as under:- "On a deep and careful consideration to the purpose and intendment of Section 24 and the scheme of the Act, I am of the view that this section should receive the interpretation to lay down the following guide-lines. (a) On receipt of insecticide Analyst's report, the Insecticide Inspector shall deliver one copy of the report to the person from whom the sample is taken. (a) On receipt of insecticide Analyst's report, the Insecticide Inspector shall deliver one copy of the report to the person from whom the sample is taken. In case the sample is found sub-standard or mis-branded and the Inspector intends to launch prosecution against other persons also, then a copy of the said report should be made available to all the accused against whom the report is sought to be used in order to give them an opportunity to challenge the correctness or authenticity of the report within the specified time as provided in sub-section (3). (b) The right to challenge Analyst's report within 28 days of the receipt of a copy of such report as provided In sub-sec. (3) should be available to all the accused against whom the report Is sought to be used In the criminal prosecution. (c) If the correctness of Analyst's report is challenged by the person from whom the sample was taken or any other accused within the prescribed period, the Insecticide Inspector is bound to send the second part of the sample/container, which was restored to the person from whom the sample was taken, to the CIL for retesting or re-analysing. If this Interpretation is not taken, the very purpose of giving one part of the sample to the person from whom It was taken shall be meaning-less. Further, the opening words of sub-section (4) "Unless the sample has already been tested or analysed in the Central Insecticides Laboratory" indicate that the second sample can be got analysed or tested in the CIL without Intervention of the Court. (d) In case the second sample is sent for retesting or re-analysing In the CIL as aforesaid, the report of the CIL shall be conclusive and there would be no further right to any accused to get the third sample produced In the Court to be analysed or re-tested in the CIL. (e) In case, the second sample is not analysed or re- tested as aforesaid for any reason, Including that criminal proceedings in respect of the sample are pending in the Court, the third sample may be sent for analysing or re-testing by the Court on Its own motion or at the request either of the complainant or of the accused, as the case may be. (f) After receipt of a copy of Analyst's report if the same is not challenged by any of the accused within the prescribed period, it would be conclusive under Section 24(3) of the Act and it would not be open to be challenged by them in the criminal proceedings which are pending or initiated against them. In that situation, it would not be open for them to say that they have been deprived of their right to get the sample re-tested or re-analysed in the CIL. In case, the Analyst's report was not made available to other accused before launching prosecution against them, they should have a right to get a report from the CIL by making request to the court concerned to get the third sample produced in the court re-tested or re- analysed. (g) In case the second part of the sample is not sent to the CIL for re-testing or re-analysing inspite of the notification expressing intention to adduce evidence in contravention of the report made within 28 days and the prosecution is launched after inordinate delay i.e. after expiry of self-life period of the insecticide, then it would be fatal to the prosecution as it would deprive the accused of their valuable right to get the sample tested or analysed in the CIL." 6. In light of the above view taken by me petitioners 4 and 5 cannot have any grievance for delay in launching prosecution in as much they failed to exercise their right of re-hacking by notifying their intention to adduce evidence in contravention to the report within 28 days of the receipt of a copy of the report as required under Section 24(3) of the Act. The effect of this is that the report of the insecticide Analyst has become conclusive against them. From the record, it appears that show cause notice alongwith a copy of the report of the Insecticide Analyst was served upon them on *15th September, 1989 and they did not submit any notification in within within 28 days of the receipt of the report, as required under sub- section (3) of Section 24 of the Act. From the record it appears that intention notified by in letter dated 10th October, 1989 was delivered to the Insecticide Inspector on 26th October, 1989 i.e. after expiry of 28 days of the receipt of the report. From the record it appears that intention notified by in letter dated 10th October, 1989 was delivered to the Insecticide Inspector on 26th October, 1989 i.e. after expiry of 28 days of the receipt of the report. Thus, prima facie, they lost their right to get another sample re-tested in the OIL. 7. However, the case of the manufacturing firm and its partners stands on a different footing. Admittedly, they were served with a copy of the Analyst's report alongwith a show-cause notice sent to them by the registered letter on 14th December, 1990 and by that time the life period of the Insecticide had already expired in April, 1990. The effect of delay in delivering a copy of the report of Insecticide Analyst is that they have been deprived of their valuable right to get another sample re-tested in the CIL. Not only this, the complaint was also filed on 27th March, 1991 and as such, a right could not have been exercised through the court also. The right to get another sample re-tested in the CIL has to be exercised within the life period of the Insecticide Analyst is delivered after expiry of the life period of the Insecticide or complaint is filed after, inordinate delay after expiry of life period of the Insecticide, then, as held by me a valuable right of re-testing another sample is denied to the accused, in such cases, this Court has been interfering in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.RC., as continuance of proceedings against those accused who have been deprived of their right would be a mere formality. 8. In light of decision of M/s. Bharat Insecticides Ltd. (supra), the petition of petitioners No. 1,2 and 3 is allowed. Criminal proceedings against them in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Chomu in criminal case No. 275/1991 are hereby quashed. However, proceedings against petitioners No. 4 and 5 shall continue. The petition is allowed in part as indicated above. 9. 8. In light of decision of M/s. Bharat Insecticides Ltd. (supra), the petition of petitioners No. 1,2 and 3 is allowed. Criminal proceedings against them in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Chomu in criminal case No. 275/1991 are hereby quashed. However, proceedings against petitioners No. 4 and 5 shall continue. The petition is allowed in part as indicated above. 9. Before parting with i would like to express that criminal proceedings against the manufacturer and its partners are being quashed by this Court on account of negligence on the part of the Insecticide Inspector for not serving on them a copy of the report of the Insecticide Analyst in the life period of the Insecticide and also due to the delay in launching prosecution i.e. after expiry of life period of the product. In such matters it is the duty of the Insecticide Inspector to see that the accused are served upon with a copy of the Insecticide Analyst in life period of the Insecticide so that they may not be deprived of their valuable right to get another sample re-tested in the CIL. It is also expected of them to launch prosecution without any delay so if this right was not made available to them, the same can be made available through the court as provided under sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Act. The law has been settled by various judgments of this Court and other High Courts and Insecticide Inspectors are expected to be for the conversant with them. The experience shows that the accused are acquitted or proceedings against them are quashed simply on the ground of delay either in launching prosecution or in serving upon them a copy of the Insecticide Analyst's report. The higher authorities of the department should take a serious note of such lapses if they are really serious to see that guilty persons are adequately punished by the Courts. The Registry is, therefore, directed to send a copy of this order to the Director, Agriculture, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur for doing needful. 10. The trial courts are also expected to be prompt in trial of such matters. The present matter has already been delayed and as such, the trial Magistrate is directed to conclude trail of the case within six months from the date of receipt of the record from this Court. 10. The trial courts are also expected to be prompt in trial of such matters. The present matter has already been delayed and as such, the trial Magistrate is directed to conclude trail of the case within six months from the date of receipt of the record from this Court. The trial court shall take effective steps in order to complete trial within the specified time and in case it is not completed the concerned Presiding Officer shall sent his explanation to this Court. The petitioner No. 5 A.K. Sharda is directed to appear before the trial court on 1st August, 1996. The Registry is directed to send the record of the case alongwith a copy of this order immediately to the concerned court to avoid further delay in trial of the case.Petition partly allowed. *******