JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal misc. petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed 1 by the Distributors (petitioners 1 and 2) and Manufacturers (petitioners 3 and 4) with the prayer that the proceedings of Criminal case No. 175/97 State v. M/s. Pawan and Co. and ors. for the offence punishable under section 29(1)(a) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as `the 5 Act of 1968') pending in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisingh Nagar (Sri Ganganagar) be quashed. 2. It arises in the following circumstances : On 24.5.1997, a complaint was filed by Gurdeep Singh, Agriculture Officer (Plant Protection) and Insecticide Inspector, Raisingh Nagar, District Sri Ganganagar in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisingh Nagar District Sri Ganganagar against the present petitioners, who are Distributors as well as Manufacturers. It was stated in the complaint that on 23.8.1994, the Insecticide Inspector and Agriculture Officer (Plant Protection), Raisingh Nagar District Sri Ganganagar took sample of the insecticide Fenvelerate 20% EC from M/s. Pawan and Co. 61, Old Dhan Mandi, Raisingh Nagar, District 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 State Pesticide Testing Laboratory Durgapura, Jaipur and the Insecticide Analyst, State Pesticide Testing Laboratory, Jaipur gave his report on 31.10.1994, in which it was reported that the sample did not confirm to the relevant specification in the tests reported and hence, it was misbranded. It was also stated in the report that batch number of the insecticide was 930604 and date of manufacturing was 17th June 1993 and date of expiry was 16th June, 1995. 3. When the sample was not found in accordance with the prescribed standard, a notice dated 3.12.1994 was given by the Insecticide Inspector and Agriculture Officer (Plant Protection) Raisingh Nagar District Sri Ganganagar to the dealer M/s. Pawan and Company, Raisingh Nagar, District Sri Ganganagar, from whom, sample was taken and in response to the said 30 notice, a reply was filed by M/s. Pawan and Company Raisingh Nagar on 7.12.1994 stating therein that they purchased the article in question from the accused petitioners 3 and 4. Thereafter, on 6.4.1995, notice was also given to the accused petitioners 3 and 4.On this complaint, the learned Addl. Thereafter, on 6.4.1995, notice was also given to the accused petitioners 3 and 4.On this complaint, the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisingh Nagar (Sri Ganganagar) vide order dated 30.6.1997 took cognizance against the accused petitioners for the offence punishable under section 29(1)(a) of the Act of 1968. 4. In this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., it has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that since the complaint was filed after the expiry of shelf life of the insecticide in question, therefore, the accused petitioners were deprived of their valuable right to get the sample re-tested from Central Insecticide Laboratory and it has prejudiced in their defence and in these circumstances, continuation of the proceedings against the accused petitioners amount to abuse of the process of the Court as and it should be set aside. 5. On the other hand, he learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that such type of plea had already been taken by the accused petitioners petitioners 1 and 2 before the Court and the same was rejected by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisingh Nagar vide order dated 15.5.1999 and thus, this petition under section 482 Cr.RC. is not maintainable. 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. (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 intends 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 samples 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 that the sample was taken by the Insecticide Inspector and Agriculture Officer (Plant Protection). Raisingh Nagar District Sri Ganganagar on 23.8.1994 from M/s. Pawan and Company, Raisinghnagar. Thereafter, the said sample was sent to in the State Pesticide Testing Laboratory, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur for analysis and Insecticide Analyst, State Pesticide Testing Laboratory, Jaipur gave his report on 31.10.1994 and found that the sample was misbranded. The date of manufacturing of the insecticide in question was 17th June, 1993 and the date of expiry was 16th June, 1995. The complaint was filed on 15 24.5.1997, meaning thereby after the expiry of shelf life of the insecticide in question. 10. The next question that arises for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances just mentioned above when the complaint was filed after the expiry of the shelf-life of the insecticide in question, proceedings 20 under section 482 Cr.PC. can be quashed or not. 11. So far as the point whether the expiry date of the sample is relevant or not, it may be stated here that in the prescribed form for submission of the report by the Insecticide Analyst, the dates of manufacture of the article and the expiry date are mentioned. It means the expiry date of sample is very much material in deciding such type of matters. It means the expiry date of sample is very much material in deciding such type of matters. 12. Section of the Act of 1968 provides for defences which may or may not be allowed in prosecution under the Act of1968. Section 30(1) of the Act of 1968 only prescribes in effect that ignorance would be no defence but that does not mean that if there are contraventions of other mandatory provisions of the Act of 1968, the accused have no remedy. The procedure for testing the sample is prescribed and if it is contravened to the prejudice of the accused, he certainly has the right to seek dismissal of the complaint. Then in order to safeguard the right of the accused to have the sample tested from the Central Insecticides Laboratory, it is incumbent on the prosecution to file the complaint expeditiously so that the right of the accused is not lost. 13. In the present case, by the time complaint was filed before the Court, the expiry date of the insecticide was already over and sending of the sample to the Central Insecticides Laboratory at that late stage would be of no consequence. Therefore, in view of Sections 24(3) and 24(4) of the Act of 1968, the report of the Insecticide Analyst, State Pesticide Testing Laboratory, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur was not conclusive. A valuable right had been conferred on the accused petitioners to have the sample tested from the Central Insecticides Laboratory and in these circumstances of the case, the accused petitioners have been deprived of that right, thus, prejudicing them in their defence. In these circumstances, it would be abuse of the process of the Court if the prosecution against the accused petitioners is allowed to continue. In coming to the above conclusion, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble so Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Unique Farmaid (P) Ltd. and ors., 1999 SCC (Cri) 1404 . 14. Apart from this, Section 24 of the Act of 1968 confers two rights, 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 reanalysis of the counter samples after the complaint is filed. 14. Apart from this, Section 24 of the Act of 1968 confers two rights, 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 reanalysis of the counter samples after the complaint is filed. The provisions of this section simply provide that in case a written request is made by the dealer or the manufacturer expressing its intention to controvert the report of the Analyst, the report shall not be conclusive evidence of the facts contained therein. 15. The material requirement of the Act of 1968 is that the complaint to should be filed and the accused should be served well in time before the expiry of the shelf life of insecticide in question so as to enable the accused persons to challenge the correctness of the report of the Analyst by forwarding the counterpart of the sample to the Central Insecticide Laboratory. If this right of an accused under the Act of 1968 is violated by in action or omission on the part of the Department, the same is fatal to the prosecution. 16. From this point of view also, the right of the accused petitioners to get the sample re-tested from the Central Insecticide Laboratory has been violated, as the complaint was filed after the expiry of the shelf-life of the insecticide in question. 17. In the following authorities, it has been held that complaint filed after expiry of shelf life of insecticide would result in the denial of right of the accused to get the sample analysed by the Central Insecticide Laboratory and the complaints were quashed : (1) TVV Reddy, Regional Manager v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, (2000) IAC 67 (AP) . (2) Jot Ram Dharam Chand Thappa v. State of Punjab, (2000) IAC 135 (P & H) . (3) Dr. D.H. Desai v. State of Punjab, (2000) IAC 139 (P & H) (4) Hindustan Ciba Geigy Ltd. and ors. v. State of Raj. & ors., (2000) IAC 165 (Raj.) (5) R.P. Gupta and ors. v. State of Rajasthan, (2000) IAC 408 (Raj.) . 18. (3) Dr. D.H. Desai v. State of Punjab, (2000) IAC 139 (P & H) (4) Hindustan Ciba Geigy Ltd. and ors. v. State of Raj. & ors., (2000) IAC 165 (Raj.) (5) R.P. Gupta and ors. v. State of Rajasthan, (2000) IAC 408 (Raj.) . 18. Looking to the above authorities, since in the present case also complaint was admittedly filed after the expiry of shelf life of insecticide, it would result in the denial of right of the accused to get the sample reanalysed by the Central Insecticide Laboratory and in these circumstances, the proceedings against the present accused petitioners 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.For the reasons stated above, this petition filed by the accused petitioners under section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the proceedings of Criminal case No. 175/97 State v. Pawan and Co. and ors. for the offence punishable under section 29(1) (a) of the Act of 1968 pending in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raisingh Nagar (Sri Ganganagar) against the present accused petitioners are quashed.Petition allowed. *******