Judgment R.C.Kathuria, J. 1. The petitioner seeks quashing of complaint dated 6.7.1992 (Annexure-P.4) pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act) read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971, pleading that the complaint had been filed after the expiry of the shelf life of the insecticide sample of which was taken by the Insecticides Inspector despite the request made for re-analysis of the sample from the Central Insecticides Laboratory before the expiry of its shelf life and that the Insecticides Inspector was not authorised to take sample from M/s Mittal Pesticides, Kotkapura as on the date when the same was taken he was not appointed as Insecticides Inspector, Kotkapura in terms of Section 20 of the Act. 2. M/s Mittal Pesticides, Kotkapura was dealing in insecticides/pesticides under Licence No. 60/50 dated 1.1.1992 issued by the Licensing Authority i.e. Chief Agricultural Officer, Faridkot. On 28.8.1991, Hardev Singh, claiming himself to be Insecticides Inspector, Kotkapura, had visited shop of M/s Mittal Pesticides, Kotkapura in the presence of Balbir Singh, Agriculture Development Officer, Kotkapura. Parmod Kumar, Patner of the aforesaid partnership concern was present at the shop. After disclosing his identity, the Insecticides Inspector expressed his desire to draw a sample of Mocrotophos 36% SL (Anucron) manufactured by M/s S.N. Chemicals Industries, Faridabad proforma-respondent herein-accused No. 2 in the complaint). The sample was drawn as per prescribed procedure. One sealed sample and one Form- XII was handed over to Parmod Kumar at the spot and remaining two portions of the sample were deposited with Major Singh, Agriculture Development Officer, Faridkot in the office of the Chief Agricultural Officer, Faridkot on 29.8.1991 through Ajit Singh, Beldar, Kotkapura. Major Singh sent one portion of the sample to the Director, Plant Protection Querantini and Storage Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad on 30.8.1991. On analysis, the sample was found to be mis-branded as it did not conform to the relevant specifications in its active ingredient content requirement which was found to be 31.9% instead of 36% SL. Thereafter, the copy of the analysis report was served upon the dealer and manufacturer along with show cause notice. On analysis, the sample was found to be mis-branded as it did not conform to the relevant specifications in its active ingredient content requirement which was found to be 31.9% instead of 36% SL. Thereafter, the copy of the analysis report was served upon the dealer and manufacturer along with show cause notice. After obtaining necessary sanction for the prosecution of the petitioners under Section 31(1) of the Act, the present complaint for violating Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Act was filed against the petitioners-accused in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot. The petitioners-accused were summoned by the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, summons for which was received by them on 25.8.1992. Aggrieved by the summoning order, the present petition has been filed. 3. The petition was contested by the respondents and in support of the stand taken a detailed reply dated 7.6.1995 had been filed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 5. In the forefront, the grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that after the show cause noticed 18.11.1991 (Annexure-P.1) was received by M/s Mittal Pesticides, Kotkapura (petitioner No. 1) from the Chief Agricultural Officer, Faridkot, the petitioner had made a written request for re-analysis of the sample from the Central Insecticides Laboratory before the expiry of the shelf life of the insecticide but the same was not sent for re- analysis which had caused prejudice to the petitioners cause and for that reason complaint filed deserves to be quashed. In support of the stand taken, reference was made to the show cause notice sent by the Chief Agricultural Officer, Faridkot to M/s Mittal Pesticides, Kotkapura, petitioner No. 1, it is stated that on 28.8.1991, a sample of Monocrotophos 36% SL bearing Batch No. 10 A.P. 09, date of manufacturing February 1991 and date of expiry July 1992, which was taken from the shop of the petitioner by Hardev Singh, Insecticides Inspector, Kotkapura had been declared sub-standard by the Analyst of the Laboratory and thus the petitioner had violated the provisions of Sections 3(k)(i), 18 and 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 . Petitioner No. 1 was called upon to file reply in this regard within 15 days. Copy of the analysis report (Annexure-P.2) was sent along with the show cause notice. Petitioner No. 1 was called upon to file reply in this regard within 15 days. Copy of the analysis report (Annexure-P.2) was sent along with the show cause notice. In reply, the petitioner through his partner, Parmod Kumar, sent a letter dated 2.12.1991 (Annexure-P.3) so to say within 14 days of the receipt of the show cause notice dated 18.11.1991. In reply dated 2.12.1991 filed by the petitioner, it was stated that the petitioner was ready to get the same sample analysed from the Central Insecticides Laboratory and the same be sent to the said Laboratory for analysis. In reply filed by the respondent, while dealing with the stand taken, it was stated that complaint was filed before the expiry date of the sample i.e. 6.7.1992 and as the sample in question had already been tested by the Central Insecticides Testing Laboratory, Faridabad, the same could not be got re-analysied in view of the provisions of Section 24(4) of the Act. 6. In order to appreciate the submissions made, necessary provisions of Section 24(4) of the Act have to be noticed and the same read as under :- "24. Report of Insecticide Analyst. - (1) to (3) xx xx xx xx (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 Insecticides Analysts 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) xx xx xx xx xx xx" 7. The above provision leaves no manner of doubt that right of the petitioner to get the sample re-analysed would have arisen if the sample had not already been tested or analysed in Central Insecticides Testing Laboratory. (5) xx xx xx xx xx xx" 7. The above provision leaves no manner of doubt that right of the petitioner to get the sample re-analysed would have arisen if the sample had not already been tested or analysed in Central Insecticides Testing Laboratory. In the present case, as already noticed, the sample in question taken from the shop of the petitioner was analysed by the Central Insecticides Testing Laboratory, Faridabad, report in respect of which is Annexure-P.2 annexed with the petition by the petitioners themselves. On analysis the Director, Central Insecticides Testing Laboratory had observed that the sample did not conform to the relevant specifications in its active ingredient requirement and for that reason it was mis-branded. Finality has been attached to this report under the aforesaid provision. Therefore, the petitioner has no right to get the sample re-analysed and there is merit in the stand taken from the side of the respondent in this regard. 8. The controversy does not end here because the other plea raised by the petitioner is that on the date when the sample was drawn, Hardev Singh was not notified as Insecticides Inspector in terms of the requirement of Section 20 of the Act. The respondent in its written reply to this stand of the petitioner has stated that Hardev Singh had been declared as Insecticides Inspector and his designation was changed as Agriculture Development Officer on 22.01.1991. In para 4 of the complaint filed, it had been stated by the complaint-Hardev Singh as under :- "That I was appointed as Insecticides Inspector vide Punjab Government. Notification No. S.O.90/A.46/68/S.20/91 dated 30 October, 1991 issued under Section 20 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 . I Hardev Singh have been appointed by the Director of Agriculture, Punjab, Chandigarh vide letter No. 3167- 72/S.I. Dt. 26.11.66 and re-designated as Agriculture Development Officer, vide notification No. 10/56/89/P.P./1/395 dated 22.01.1991." 9. The requirement of Section 20 of the Act is explicit because it is stated therein that the Central Government or the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint persons in such number as it thinks fit and possessing such technical and other qualification as may be prescribed to be Insecticides Inspectors for such areas as may be specified in the notification. Other provisions are not relevant and for that reason these need not be noticed. 10. Other provisions are not relevant and for that reason these need not be noticed. 10. In terms of the above requirement, the notification of the Punjab Government was issued on 30.10.1991, which has been noticed above. It means that on 28.8.1991 when Hardev Singh had visited the shop of the petitioner, he was not conferred with the powers of Insecticides Inspector. Merely, he was subsequently conferred such powers as required under Section 20 of the Act would not, in any manner, cure that defect. Post-conferment of the powers would not validate the action of the complaint in this regard. Notification appointing the Insecticides Inspector would be effective from the date of its publication in the official gazette and for that reason the action of Hardev Singh claiming himself to be the Insecticides Inspector on 28.8.1991 when factually he was not so designated in terms of the requirement of Section 20 of the Act on that date cannot be upheld and the sample of Monocrotophos 36% SL manufactured by M/s S.N. Chemical Industries, Faridabad drawn from the petitioner-firm could not be treated as a sample taken under the provisions of the Act. In view of the this, the prosecution could not have been launched. Therefore, the prosecution launched on the basis of the complaint made by Hardev Singh on 6.7.1992 in respect of the sample taken by him on 28.8.1991 would not be validated merely because on the date when the complaint was filed he had been conferred with the powers of Insecticides Inspector. In the result, the petition is accepted and complaint filed by the complainant is quashed. The petitioners-accused shall stand discharged.