JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal misc. petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the Distributors (petitioner Nos. 1 to 4) and Manufacturers (petitioner Nos. 5 to 8) with the prayer that the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 524/92 State v. Amit Pesticides and Fertilizer for the offence under sections 17(1) & 18 r/w 29(1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act of 1968') pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar be quashed. 2. It may be stated here that dealer M/s. Amit Pesticides and Fertilizer is not party before this Court. 3. It arises in the following circumstances:- On 14.9.1992, a complaint was filed by B.D. Sharma, Insecticide Inspector in the office of Assistant Director, Agriculture, Sri Ganganagar in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar against the present petitioners, who are Distributors as well as Manufacturers and apart from them, against M /s. Amit Pesticides and Fertilizer and its proprietor Suresh Kumar, who were dealers of the insecticides in question. It was stated in the complaint that on 24.10.1991 Insecticide Inspector, Sri Ganganagar took sample of the insecticide B.H.C. 10% dust, Gamma Isomer 1.3% from M/s. Amit Pesticides and Fertilizer, Sri Ganganagar, who was dealer and prepared fard and divided the sample into three parts as required by the law. One of the samples was sent for analysis to the Pesticide Testing Laboratory, Government of Rajasthan, Bikaner and the Insecticide Analyst, Pesticide Testing Laboratory, Government of Rajasthan, Bikaner gave his report on 23.12.1991, in which it was reported that the sample did not confirm to I.S. specification No. 561/1978 in the active ingredient and hence, it was misbranded. It was also stated in the report that batch number of the insecticide package was 48 and date of manufacturing was September 1991 and date of expiry was August 1993. When the sample was not found in accordance with the prescribed standard, a notice dated 31.12.1991 was given by the Insecticide Inspector, Sri Ganganagar to the dealer M/s. Amit Pesticides and Fertilizer, Sri Ganganagar, from whom, sample was taken. Vide letter dated 17.1.1992, Suresh Kumar, proprietor of M/s. Amit Pesticides and Fertilizer, Sri Ganganagar gave reply to the Insecticide Inspector, Sri Ganganagar stating therein that they have purchased the article in question from the Distributor M/s. Nagpal Agro System Pvt. Ltd., Sri Ganganagar. Vide letter dated 17.1.1992, Suresh Kumar, proprietor of M/s. Amit Pesticides and Fertilizer, Sri Ganganagar gave reply to the Insecticide Inspector, Sri Ganganagar stating therein that they have purchased the article in question from the Distributor M/s. Nagpal Agro System Pvt. Ltd., Sri Ganganagar. They have also stated that the article, which was taken from them, was a correct one and it was wrongly tested and they made a prayer that the sample may be re-examined or re-tested. In consequence, a notice was also sent by the Insecticide Inspector to the Distributor M/s. Nagpal Agro System Pvt. Ltd., Sri Ganganagar on 9.1.1992 informing them also that the sample, which was taken from the dealer M/s. Amit Pesticide and Fertilizer, Sri Ganganagar was found misbranded. Through letter dated 15.1.1992, a reply was given by M/ s. Nagpal Agro System Pvt. Ltd. to the Insecticide Inspector that the article in question was standard one and they also enquired from the manufacturer and they informed that article in question was perfectly right one and, therefore, it was prayed that the sample may be re-tested or re-examined. Similarly, a notice to the manufacturer M/s. Unikil Pesticides (P) Ltd., Vidisha (MP) was also given by the Insecticide Inspector, Sri Ganganagar on 21.1.1992 informing that the sample of the article in question manufactured by them was found misbranded. A reply to this notice was given by M/s. Unikil Pesticides (P) Ltd. to the Insecticide Inspector on 23.1.1992, in which it was stated that the article in question was manufactured in their factory and it was perfectly as per the norms prescribed under the law and, therefore, they also made a prayer that the sample may be re-tested or re-examined. On this complaint, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar vide order dated 15.4.1992 took cognizance against all the persons mentioned in the complaint for the offence under sections 17(1) & 18 r/w Section 29(1) of the Act of 1968. During the proceedings, it appears that so far as the distributors are concerned, they were served in the year 1997 and for the first time they appeared on 6.12.1997 and manufacturers have not been served so far. 4. During the proceedings, it appears that so far as the distributors are concerned, they were served in the year 1997 and for the first time they appeared on 6.12.1997 and manufacturers have not been served so far. 4. In this petition u / section 482 Cr.P.C., it has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners distributors and manufacturers that when the distributors and manufacturers informed their intention to get the sample re-examined and the authority did not get it re-examined and, therefore, their valuable right, which was given under section 24(4) of the Act of 1968 has been infringed and they have been deprived of their valuable right and in these circumstances, the said proceedings are nothing, but abuse of process of Court and the same be quashed. 5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that all the objections, which the petitioners wanted to take through this petition, should have been taken first before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused-petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 7. Before proceeding further, it would be worthwhile to quote here Section 24 of the Act of 1968 : "Report of Insecticide Analyst.(1) The Insecticide Analyst to whom a sample of any insecticide has been submitted for test or analysis under sub-section (6) of Section 22, shall, within a period of sixty days, deliver to the Insecticide Inspector submitting it a signed report in duplicate in the prescribed form. . (2) The Insecticide Inspector on receipt thereof shall deliver one copy of the report to the person from whom the sample was taken and shall retain the other copy for use in any prosecution in respect of the sample. (3) Any document purporting to be a report signed by an Insecticide Analyst shall be evidence of the facts 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 intents to adduce evidence in controversion of the report. (4) Unless the sample has already been tested or analysed in the Central Insecticides Laboratory, where a person has under sub-section (3) notified his intention of adducing evidence in controversion of 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-section (6) of Section 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 stated therein. (5) The cost of a test or analysis made by the Central Insecticides Laboratory under sub-section (4) shall be paid by the complainant or the accused, as the Court shall direct." 8. Section 21 of the Act of 1968 empowers the Insecticide Inspector to take samples of any insecticide and send such samples for analysis to the insecticide Analyst for test in the prescribed manner and as per sub-section (5) of Section 22 of the Act of 1968, he shall divide the sample into three portions and effectively seal and as per sub-section (6) of Section 22, one of the samples shall be forwarded by him to the Insecticide Analyst for test or analysis. As per Section 24(1) of the Act of 1968, the Insecticide Analyst to whom a sample of any insecticide has been submitted for test or analysis under sub-section (6) of Section 22, shall, within a period of sixty days, deliver to the Insecticide Inspector submitting it a signed report in duplicate in the prescribed form and according to sub-section (2) of Section 24, the Insecticide Inspector on receipt thereof shall deliver one copy of the report to the person from whom the sample was taken and the report of the Insecticide Analyst shall be conclusive evidence unless the person from whom 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 intents to adduce evidence in controversion of the report. Sub-section (4) of Section 24 casts a duty on the Insecticide Inspector to make compliance of the provisions for re-testing etc. 9. From perusing the record of the present case, it appears:- (1) That the sample was taken by the Insecticide Inspector, Sri Ganganagar on 24.10.1991 from M/s. Amit Pesticides and Fertilizer, Sri Ganganagar. (2) That the said sample was sent to the Insecticide Analyst, Pesticide Testing Laboratory, Government of Rajasthan, Bikaner for analysis and the Insecticide Analyst gave his report on 23.12.1991 and found that the sample was misbranded. (3) That thereafter, a notice dated 31.12.1991 was given by Insecticide Inspector, Sri Ganganagar to M/s. Amit Pesticides and Fertilizer, Sri Ganganagar, who vide letter dated 17.1.1992 informed that article from which sample was taken, was purchased by them from the Distributor M/ s. Nagpal Agro System Pvt. Ltd. and they further notified their intention to adduce evidence in controversion of the report of the Insecticide Analyst i.e. they made prayer for re-ex-amination of the sample. (4) That a similar notice was also given by the Insecticide Inspector to the Distributor Nagpal Agro System Pvt. Ltd., Sri Ganganagar on 9.1.1992 and Nagpal Agro System Pvt. Ltd. also submitted their reply on 15.1.1992 and they also notified their intention to adduce evidence in controversion of the report of the Insecticide Analyst i.e. they made prayer for re-testing of the sample. (5) That a similar notice was also given by Insecticide Inspector to the manufacturer M/s. Unikil Pesticides (P) Ltd., Vidisha (MP) and M/s. Unikil Pesticides (P) Ltd. also filed a reply in which they also prayed that the sample be re-examined. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amery Pharmaceuticals & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, (2001) 4 SCC 382 has clearly held that so far as the giving of notice to the dealer and distributor is concerned, the Inspector is obliged under the law to give notices to them about the misbranding sample. 11. Thus, under law, Insecticide Inspector is bound to give notice alongwith copy of the report of the Insecticide Analyst to the dealer and distributors as required by Section 24(2) of the Act of 1968. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amery Pharmaceuticals (supra) has further held that the manufacturer's position is somewhat different from the distributor or retailer and the Inspector is not obliged to give notice to manufacturer. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amery Pharmaceuticals (supra) has further held that the manufacturer's position is somewhat different from the distributor or retailer and the Inspector is not obliged to give notice to manufacturer. But, he manufacturer cannot be denied the remedy of challenging the Government Analyst's report before the Court, when they are made accused in the case under section 32-A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, as it would amount to violation of right u/Ait. 21 of the Constitution of India. 13. It may be stated here that some of the High Courts earlier to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amery Pharmaceuticals (supra) were of the opinion that even the Inspector was under bounden duty to give notice to manufacturer and now the position has been made clear by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amery Pharmaceuticals's case (supra) that Inspector is not under an obligation to give notice to manufacturer, but if notice had already been given before filing of the complaint and within prescribed limit, then certainly he has a similar right as the distributor has. 14. In the present case also, as stated above, notices were given to all dealer, distributors and manufacturers and they all notified their intention to adduce evidence in controversion of the report i.e. they made prayer for re-examination of the sample to the Insecticide Inspector within the prescribed limit i.e. twenty eight days of the receipt of the copy of the report. Section 24 of the Act of 1968 confers two rights : (1) to challenge the correctness of the report of the Analyst on receiving of the show cause notice; and (2) to challenge the same by making request before the Court for re-analysis of sample after the complaint is filed. Therefore, in the present case, first right has been exercised by all the present petitioners, who are distributors and manufacturers by making request before the Insecticide Inspector for re-testing of the sample. Thus, they are within their statutory right in doing so. 15. Therefore, in the present case, first right has been exercised by all the present petitioners, who are distributors and manufacturers by making request before the Insecticide Inspector for re-testing of the sample. Thus, they are within their statutory right in doing so. 15. In these circumstances, the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that request for re-testing of the sample ought to have been made to the Court and not to the insecticide Inspector is not correct one and for that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Unique Farmaid (P) Ltd. & Ors., 1999 SCC (Cri.) 1404 may be referred to and in that case also, such contention was repelled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Earlier to this decision, the Honble Supreme Court in Y.R.S. Rao v. Deputy Director of Agriculture, Karimagar, A.P. & Ors., 1983 SCC (Cri) 560 upheld this right and held that where the person notifies the intention of adducing evidence against such report, this intention should be complied with. 16. Thus, from the above authorities, it is very much clear that in the present case when all the present petitioners, who have been arraigned as accused has notified in writing their intention to adduce evidence in controversion of the report i.e. they made a prayer for re-testing of the sample to the Insecticide Inspector, Sri Ganganagar within the time prescribed under the law, it was the bounden duty of the Insecticide Inspector to get it re-tested or re-examined and if he has not done so, he has infringed the valuable right available to the present petitioners and they have been deprived of such right. 17. Now the question that arises for consideration is whether in these circumstances the High Court under inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. should wash the proceedings or not. 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Unique Farmaid (P) Ltd. (supra) has held that in such circumstances, continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the order of the High Court of Punjab quashing the complaint. 19. 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Unique Farmaid (P) Ltd. (supra) has held that in such circumstances, continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the order of the High Court of Punjab quashing the complaint. 19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd., 1997 Cr.L.R. (SC) 246 has held that accused of that case was entitled to get one sample examined independently and in absence of this, he was deprived statutory defence and in that case also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed tne proceedings. 20. This Court in Cyanamid Agro India Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2000(2) RCC 1463 has held that as the sample was not sent for retesting despite timely request of the accused-petitioners, therefore, they were deprived of their right to get the sample retested under section 24(4) of the Act of 1968 and the proceedings were quashed in exercise of powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. 21. This Court in another decision in Mohanlal v. State of Rajasthan, 2000 Cr.L.J. (Raj.) 2623 has held that if the accused was deprived of his right of retesting of the sample by the Central Insecticides Laboratory despite his request to get it examined by the said Laboratory, the proceedings against the accused are nothing but abuse of process of the Court. 22. Looking to the above authorities, since in the present case also though all the present petitioners, who have been arraigned as accused, have notified in writing their intention to adduce evidence in controversion of the report i.e. they made a prayer for re-testing of the sample to the Insecticide Inspector, Sri Ganganagar within the time prescribed under the law, but the sample was not sent for re-testing and thus, the petitioners have been deprived of their right to get the sample retested under section 24(4) of the Act of 1968 and in these circumstances, the proceedings against them are nothing but abuse of process of Court and are liable to be quashed in exercise of the powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. 23. Hence, the argument of the learned Public Prosecutor that such objections taken in this petition should have been taken first before the learned Magistrate carries no weight and stands rejected.For the reasons stated above, this petition filed by the petitioners under section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the proceedings of criminal case No. 524/92 State v. Amit Pesticides & Fertilizer for the offence under sections 17(1) and 18 r/w 29(1) of the Act of 1968 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar, so far as they relate to the present accused-petitioners, are quashed.Petition allowed. *******