Judgment : This is an application filed by the petitioners under Sec.482 of Crl.P.C. to quash the complaint and the proceedings thereon so far as the petitioners are concerned in C.C.No.577 of 1996 on the file of Judicial Magistrate at Musiri. .2. The facts leading to the case are as follows: The petitioners are accused 1 to 3 in this case and they are engaged in the manufacture of insecticides. The respondent filed a complaint against the petitioners and three others alleging that on 22. 1995 the complainant went to the premises of Sri Ranga Agencies at Kattuputhur and took samples of insecticides containing 500 grams packets and sent the same for analysis on 22. 1995, and the report of the analyst was received on 23. 1995 from the Testing Laboratory at Tiruchi, and as per the report of the analyst the sample sent for analysis failed in the active ingredient, and on the basis of the report of the analyst a show cause notice was sent to all the accused 1 to 6 in this case, and after obtaining the sanction from the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Musiri, a prosecution was launched in C.C.No.577 of 1996 against the petitioners and three others on a charge that insecticides is misbranded. The complaint was filed before the Judicial Magistrate at Musiri only on 3. 1996 though the analysis report was received by the complainant as early as on 23. 1995. The petitioners have received summons and appeared before the court on 11. 1996 and the copies of the prosecution was given to them on 11. 1996. After the receipt of the copies the petitioners have denied the commission of any offence and the case was posted for trial on 111. 1996. On 111. 1996 the 5th accused the seller of the product to the 6th accused, who in turn is the seller of the product to the complainant have admitted the offence and paid the fine imposed by the Judicial Magistrate at Musiri. These petitioners A-1 to A-3 filed a petition before the Magistrate’s Court praying to send the samples of the alleged insecticide to the Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad, Haryana for re-analysis and report. The Magistrate was pleased to dismiss the said application in Crl.M.P.No.1752 of 1996 in C.C.No.577 of 1996 on the ground that the shelf life of the product has already expired. The Magistrate was pleased to dismiss the said application in Crl.M.P.No.1752 of 1996 in C.C.No.577 of 1996 on the ground that the shelf life of the product has already expired. The product under prosecution is not manufactured by him. The petitioners could not avail the opportunity of sending the sample in dispute for re-analysis to the Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad, Haryana. So the petitioners, who are accused 1 to 3, seek to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.577 of 1996 on the file of Judicial Magistrate’s Court at Musiri. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners have got the legal right to send the sample from the court for re-analysis as available to them under the Insecticides Act, 1968 and moreover, the sample taken by the respondent was not manufactured by the petitioners and they have not supplied the same to the other accused viz., accused 4 to 6 in this case and in those circumstances the proceedings against the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 should be quashed. 4. Notice was sent to the respondent/complainant and he has been served with notice, and the respondent has not appeared in person or through the learned Government Advocate. 5. Sec.24 declares that "any document purporting to be a report signed by an Insecticide Analyst, shall be evidence of the fact stated therein, and such evidence shall be conclusive unless the person from whom the sample was taken has within twenty-eight days of the receipt of a copy of the report, notified in writing the Insecticide Inspector or the court before which any proceedings in respect of the sample are pending, that he intends to adduce evidence in contra version of the report. Sub-sec. Sub-sec. (4) of Sec.24 envisages that "unless the sample has already been tested or analysed in the Central Insecticides Laboratory, where a person has under Sub-sec.(3) notified his intention of adducing evidence in contraversion the Insecticide analyst’s report, the court may, of its own motion or in its discretion at the request either of the complainant or of the accused, cause the sample of the insecticide produced before the Magistrate under Sub-sec.(6) of Sec.22 to be sent for test or analysis to the said Laboratory, which shall make the test or analysis and report in writing signed by, or under the authority of, the Director of the Central Insecticides Laboratory the result thereof, and such report shall be conclusive evidence of the facts therein". Under Sub-sec.(6), the costs of the test or analysis made by the Central Insecticide Laboratory, under Sub-sec.(4) shall be paid by the complainant or the accused, as the court shall direct. .6. Thus it would be clear that after the inspection and seizure of the insecticide, the Insecticide Inspector shall divide the insecticide into three portions as contemplated and in the manner prescribed and deliver one such sample to the manufacturer or person from whom insecticide was taken. One should be sent to the Insecticide Analyst. After the receipt of the report, the accused would be notified of the result of the report, Thereafter the complaint is required to be lodged in the court. At that stage two options are open to the accused. The accused is entitled to have one copy of the sample entrusted to him to have it notified to the court for proving to be contrary to the conclusive evidence of the report of the analyst after such a notification having been given to the court, he is entitled to have it tested by Central Insecticide Laboratory and adduce evidence of the report so given. That such certificate by the Director of Central Insecticide Laboratory has a proof of his defence to lodge the conclusiveness attached to the report of the Insecticide Analyst under Subsec.(3) of Sec.24. That such certificate by the Director of Central Insecticide Laboratory has a proof of his defence to lodge the conclusiveness attached to the report of the Insecticide Analyst under Subsec.(3) of Sec.24. The other option is after the complaint is laid in the court, the copy of the sample that is lodged with the court by the Insecticides Inspector would be requested to be sent by the court to the Central Insecticide Laboratory and the report thus given by the Director of Central Insecticide Laboratory shall be conclusive evidence as to the quality, consent and facts stated therein. 7. Thus Sec.24 of the Insecticides Act confers two rights i.e., the right to challenge the correctness of the report of the analysis on the receipt of the show cause notice and secondly to challenge the same and to make a request before the court for re-analysis of the counter sample after the complaint is filed. The provisions of this section simply provide that in case a written request is made by the dealer expressing its intention to controvert the report of the Analyst, the report shall not be conclusive evidence of the facts contained therein. Therefore, the service of the notice regarding the sample misbranded or intimating the dealer that the re-analysis can be ordered by a court before the date of expiry of the shelf-life of the insecticide is of no consequence. The material requirement of the Act is that the complaint should be filed and the accused should be served well in time before the expiry of the shelf life of the insecticide in question so as to enable the accused persons to challenge the correctness of the report of the analyst by forwarding the counter part of the sample to the Central Laboratory. If this right of an accused under the Act is violated by inaction or omission or delay on the part of the department, the same is fatal to the prosecution. .8. In this case the complaint was filed on 3. 1996. The petitioners were furnished with copies of the documents on 11. 1996 and then the case was posted for trial on 111. 1996. .8. In this case the complaint was filed on 3. 1996. The petitioners were furnished with copies of the documents on 11. 1996 and then the case was posted for trial on 111. 1996. Even on the date of furnishing of copies the petitioners herein, who are accused 1 to 3 through their counsel, filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate at Musiri under Sec.24(4) of Insecticides Act, 1968 requesting the learned Magistrate to send the sample forwarded to the court by the complainant to the Central Insecticide Laboratory at Faridabad, Haryana for re-analysis and for a report, and the application filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 was taken on file in Crl.M.P.No.1752 of 1996, and the respondent/complainant has filed a counter statement to the said application. The learned Magistrate in his order dated 211. 1996 in Crl.M.P.No.1752 of 1996 has stated that the shelf life of the sample insecticide has expired, and the petitioners have filed the application belatedly and so he dismissed the said application. The copies of documents were furnished to the petitioners/A-1 to A-3 only on 11. 1996 and the case was posted for trial on 111. 1996, and on the very same day itself the petitioners have given the request to send the sample forwarded to the court for re-analysis, and thereby the petitioners have notified their intention of sending the sample produced before the Magistrate to be sent for analysis to the Central Insecticide Laboratory as required under Sec.24(3) (4) and (6) of the Insecticide Act, 1968 and the Magistrate declined the request. Thereby the petitioners were denied an opportunity of sending the sample forwarded to the Magistrate for further chemical analysis and it has caused great prejudice to the interest of the petitioners especially when they have stated that the samples taken by the respondent from the accused 4 to 6 were not manufactured by them. In those circumstances I am of the view that this is a fit case to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this court under Sec.482 of Crl.P.C. to secure the ends of justice to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.577 of 1996 on the file of Judicial Magistrate at Musiri as regards the petitioners/A-1 to A3, and so this petition has to be allowed, and consequently I answer this point in favour of the petitioners/A-1 to A-3. 9. 9. In the result this petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.577 of 1996 on the file of Judicial Magistrate at Musiri as regards the petitioners, who are accused Nos. 1 to 3 in this case, are quashed.