Judgment ( 1 ) ORDER :- This Criminal Misc. Petition has been preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 5-9-95 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Case No. 294/95 titled State v. Sohan Lal and others whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 17 (1) (a) and 18 (1) (c) read with Section 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short "the Act" ). ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner No. 1 is a manufacturer and supplier of insecticides while petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are its Directors functioning at Delhi. Shri Ramdas Garg, who is Proprietor of M/s. Aggarwal Pesticides Store, Sri Ganganagar, is a local distributor of the insecticides produced by the petitioner-Company who had further supplied such production/insecticides to its dealer Mohan Lal, Proprietor of M/s. New Durga Pesticides, Sri Ganganagar. ( 3 ) SHRI B. D. Sharma, Insecticide Inspector, on 4-12-93 inspected the premises of M/s. New Durga Pesticides, Sri Ganganagar, being a licence holder, to deal in such insecticides, and took a sample of BHC 10% Dust Batch No. 120 manufactured by the petitioner No. 1 from intact sealed pack weighing 10 Kgs. as per the provisions of the Act and its Rules framed in 1971 and the sample so taken was divided into three equal portions which were accordingly packed and sealed. One portion of the same was delivered to the owner of the firm while remaining two portions of the sample were detained by the Insecticide Inspector. One portion of the sample was despatched to the Pesticides Laboratory at Bikaner on 8-12-1993 and, after analysis and testing of the portion of the sample so sent, vide its report dated 25-1-94, the State Pesticide Testing Laboratory, Bikaner confirmed that the sample so forwarded did not conform to the I. S. I. Specification and hence it was confirmed to be misbranded. Accordingly, while despatching copy of the testing report, M/s. New Durga Pesticides and so also the petitioners were informed about the sample of their product and dealership having been confirmed to be misbranded and to show cause as to why should criminal action be not initiated against them. Accordingly, while despatching copy of the testing report, M/s. New Durga Pesticides and so also the petitioners were informed about the sample of their product and dealership having been confirmed to be misbranded and to show cause as to why should criminal action be not initiated against them. M/s. New Durga Pesticides vide its reply dated 18-2-94 maintained that the BHC 10% Dust packing was manufactured by the petitioner- Company which were further distributed and supplied to them by the local distributor M/s. Aggarwal Pesticide Store, Sri Ganganagar on 29-10-93 and in case the same was misbranded, it was without their knowledge, connivance or any fault. As regards the petitioners, vide their reply dated 4-6-94, they admitted that they are the manufacturers of BHC 10% Dust as per the I. S. I. specification and releasing the material for sale but only after testing in their laboratory. It was further stated that they had fully tested their counter sample of the BHC 10% Dust and it was found that the product was perfectly all right and, therefore, it was disputed that the product of insecticides so manufactured, supplied and, lastly, sold by the firm of Ganganagar was at all misbranded and, accordingly, the finding of the testing report of the Pesticides Laboratory, Bikaner was challenged with a request that in view of the provisions of Sections 23 (3) and 24 (4) of the Act, the counter-sample for re-testing of the said product be sent to the Central Insecticides Laboratory under intimation to the petitioners who volunteered to bear all charges for re-testing of the same. It was further informed that date of expiry of this product was Jan. , 1995. However, the Insecticide Inspector, Sri Ganganagar did not respond to the replies sent by the aforesaid parties including the petitioners and while sitting over the matter, filed a complaint under the aforesaid sections in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar as late as on 29-6-95 against the manufacturers, distributor and the dealer aforementioned and, consequently, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide his order dated 5-9-95, took cognizance of the said offences against all these persons including the petitioners and ordered for issuance of summonses for their appearance on 20-10-95 and hence, being aggrieved by the same, with the request of invocation of inherent powers of this Court, this petition has been filed. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned P. P. for the State and have also perused and considered the relevant material relating to the case requisitioned from the trial Court. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners, while relying on the decisions rendered in State of Punjab v. National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. , (1996) 11 SCC 613 , as well as M/s. Pesticides India v. State of Rajasthan, 1996 Cri LR (Raj) 254, submitted that, admittedly, the petitioners are manufacturers of the insecticides of which the complainant-Insecticide Inspector took a sample dividing the same into three portions and one of which is alleged to have been confirmed to be misbranded necessitating the petitioners as well for prosecution under the aforesaid offences but, any how, while drawing attention towards the mandatory provisions of Sections 23 (3) and 24 (4) of the Act, it has been submitted that it cannot be disputed by the prosecution that the BHC 10% Dust JE 126 was manufactured in Feb. , 1993 and its date of expiry was Jan. , 1995, as is clearly borne out of the inspection memo prepared by the Insecticide Inspector himself on 4-12-93 and so also mentioned in its reply dated 4-6-94 sent by the petitioners pursuant to show cause notice issued by the Insecticide Inspector. , 1993 and its date of expiry was Jan. , 1995, as is clearly borne out of the inspection memo prepared by the Insecticide Inspector himself on 4-12-93 and so also mentioned in its reply dated 4-6-94 sent by the petitioners pursuant to show cause notice issued by the Insecticide Inspector. Accordingly, his submission is that the present complaint was filed on 29-6-95 and the cognizance of the offence was taken as late as on 5-9-95 whereby the petitioners had been summoned to appear before the trial Court on 20-10-95 and, consequently, the Insecticide Inspector did not deposit the third portion of the sample of the insecticide in the trial Court nor did he respond to the reply dated 4-6-94 sent by the petitioners thereby informing that since the petitioners intended to adduce evidence in controversion of the report and, consequently, in view of sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Act, the sample had already not been tested or analyzed in the Central Insecticides Laboratory, in view of notifying their intention by the petitioners of adducing evidence in controversion of the Insecticide Analysts report, with a view to enable the Court to accede to the request of the accused-petitioners, to cause the sample of the insecticide shown to be produced under sub-section (6) of Section 22 to be sent for test or analysis to the Central Insecticides Laboratory. Since the expiry date of the insecticide was over by Jan. , 1995 and, accordingly, no purpose could be served by making any further demand before the trial Court for causing the third portion of the sample of insecticide to be analyzed and tested by the Central Insecticides Laboratory and, consequently, the petitioner have been greatly prejudiced on account of unnecessary and belated filing of the complaint against the accused-petitioners since they have been deprived of the legal right to get the third portion of the sample analyzed and tested from the Central Insecticides Laboratory and, in the aforesaid circumstances, the same has been rendered redundant and, consequently, this complaint is incompetent and in case the same is allowed to be prosecuted further, it is nothing but a sheer abuse of process of law warranting invocation of inherent jurisdiction of this Court and quashing of the impugned order of cognizance as well as the complaint itself. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, the learned P. P. has submitted that the impugned order of taking cognizance is legal, and regular warranting no interference. ( 7 ) AS regards the facts narrated above, there is no dispute between the parties and same need not be repeated. However, suffice it to mention that the Insecticide Inspector carried out inspection of the business premises whereat M/s. New Durga Pesticide was carrying on its business of dealership and sale in the insecticides including the BHC 10% Dust Brand and there is no dispute that the package of BHC 10% Dust weighing 10 kgs. bore Batch No. JE 126 and its date of expiry was Jan. , 1995 and it was, admittedly, manufactured by the petitioners. This inspection was carried out on 4-10-93 and, after its test and analysis by the Pesticide Laboratory, Bikaner as early as on 25-1-94, the petitioners were served with a notice about the result of the analysis and testing of the insecticide on 31-5-94 which was acknowledged and replied to, without unnecessary loss of time, by the petitioners vide their letter dated 4-6-94 when they informed the Insecticide Inspector of their intention to challenge the correctness of the analysis report as referred to above with a further request that another portion of the sample so preserved by the Insecticide Inspector be sent for analysis and testing at the Central Insecticides Laboratory but, even after receipt of this reply, the Insecticide Inspector sat over the replies and, instead, did not proceed to either forward the third portion of the sample of the insecticide to the Central Insecticides Laboratory nor did be deposit the same with the Court informing the petitioners to approach the Court in this behalf. Besides, instead of filing complaint immediately thereafter, in case any offence was committed by the petitioners and their co-accused persons, it was on 29-6-95 that the present complaint was filed in the Court and by then, apparently, it was much beyond Jan. , 1995 by the time when the expiry date of the insecticide of which the sample was taken and got tested was over and, resultantly, the petitioners have been deprived of their legal rights vesting under sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Act referred to above. , 1995 by the time when the expiry date of the insecticide of which the sample was taken and got tested was over and, resultantly, the petitioners have been deprived of their legal rights vesting under sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Act referred to above. Consequently, it cannot be denied that this was a legal right vesting in the accused-petitioners to get the third portion of the sample of the insecticide of their manufacture to be analyzed and tested from the Central Insecticides Laboratory but the life of the sample so taken, having expired before the complaint itself was filed by the Insecticide Inspector and hence there is no escape from presuming that the accused-petitioners have been deprived of their valuable right of further analysis and testing of third portion of the sample as permissible by sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Act and, consequently, as also held in the decisions rendered in U. S. Madan v. State, 1991 Cri LR (Raj) 799 and Hindustan Ciba Geigy Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, 1994 Cri LR (Raj) 785, as well, in case the prosecution is allowed to continue these proceedings against the accused-petitioners as well as their co-accused persons, it is nothing but an abuse of process of Court and, therefore, there is every warrant for quashing of the impugned order and the complaint so lodged by the complainant-Insecticide Inspector. ( 8 ) BESIDES, though the case is of a quite serious nature but the Insecticide Inspector and so also his higher superior authorities have unnecessarily delayed in lodging of the complaint in the trial Court and the inordinate delay, laches and callousness on the part of these authorities cannot be said to be justified and the same warrants a serious notice by the Government unless these authorities are hand in gloves with the persons manufacturing and dealing with such insecticides for some ulterior consideration. ( 9 ) RESULTANTLY, on the basis of aforesaid discussion, since the petitioners are clearly found to have been deprived of exercise of their right enshrined under Section 24 (4) of the Act, this petition is well merited and warrants its acceptance in furtherance of ends of justice and to check abuse of process of the Court. ( 9 ) RESULTANTLY, on the basis of aforesaid discussion, since the petitioners are clearly found to have been deprived of exercise of their right enshrined under Section 24 (4) of the Act, this petition is well merited and warrants its acceptance in furtherance of ends of justice and to check abuse of process of the Court. ( 10 ) RESULTANTLY, this petition is accepted and, consequently, the impugned order dated 5-9-95 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is hereby quashed and so also the complaint relating thereto filed by the Insecticide Inspector, Sri Ganganagar stands dismissed. ( 11 ) THIS petition along with its connected stay petition stands disposed of accordingly. Order accordingly. .