JUDGMENT 1. . - This criminal misc. petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been directed by the petitioners to quash the proceedings pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Ajmer on various grounds. It is pertinent to mention that in fact petitioner No. l is a registered company under the Companies Act while petitioner No. 2 is its former Managing Director, petitioner No. 3 is former Vice President, petitioner No. 4 is Director and petitioner No. 5 is former Vice-President and petitioner No. 6 is Sales Manager. On 23.7.1992, Insecticide Inspector took samples of Thimet 10G (Phorate 10G) insecticide, details of which are as follows : 1. Name of insecticide : Thimet 10G (Phorate 10G) 2. Batch No. : 01719 3. Manufacturing Date : April, 1994 4. Expiry Date : Oct., 1995 2. The sample was sent to the State Pesticide Testing Laboratory, Jaipur and the report is Ex. 4. The State Pesticide Testing Laboratory on analysis found sample's active ingredient content 18.6% instead of 10% and did not conform to ISI specification and, therefore, misbranded. Then Inspector issued a show-cause notice to which detailed reply was filed on 10.8.1994 and 12.8.1994. The report which was also sent to the company was disputed vide reply dated 18.18.1994. However, on the basis of aforementioned facts, sanction was granted on 2.11.1994 and a complaint was filed under Section 29(1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter, referred as'the Act') against all the petitioners. The proceedings have been challenged on various grounds inter alia that the sanction and complaint are misconceived as the Directors/ Vice-Presidents have been implicated without pointing out anything to establish that they were incharge of and are responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. There was no averment or even indication so as to show the manner in which the present petitioners were responsible for the alleged act. It was P.C. Sheron, petitioner No. 6, Sales Manager who was nominated for the purpose of Section 33 of the Act. That on account of delay in filing the complaint during the period of which the life of the product had expired, the petitioners are deprived of the right to get the sample re-analysed by the Central Insecticide Laboratory and Section 24 of the Act has been negatived so far as their right is concerned. That on account of delay in filing the complaint during the period of which the life of the product had expired, the petitioners are deprived of the right to get the sample re-analysed by the Central Insecticide Laboratory and Section 24 of the Act has been negatived so far as their right is concerned. It was a valuable right which has been denied to the petitioners. The learned Magistrate mechanically took cognizance and issued summons on 5.9.1995. The petitioners had moved a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Ajmer which was disposed of on 28.6.1996 granting them liberty to raise objections before the Trial Court. Thereafter, the petitioners moved application which has not been decided by the learned Magistrate. Therefore, this petition has been moved under Section 482, Cr.P.C. 3. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State and have gone through the entire record available and the relevant law on the points. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners raised two basic points i.e. that the expiry date of the relevant product was October, 1995 while complaint was filed on 5.9.1995. However, it has been submitted that sanction was accorded without applying the mind which :s a non- speaking order. He relied on a large number of authorities of this Court as well as sore other Courts but he forgets that the points which he is raising here have already been raised in the petition which has been submitted before the learned Magistrate as per directions of the revisional Court. Without getting them decided from the learned Magistrate, this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed which is nothing but misuse of the process of the Court and cannot be allowed to continue. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners specifically cited M/s. Anu Products Ltd. & Ors. v. State, WLC (Raj.) UC 2000 page 327 ; and, M/s. S.N. Chemicals v. State of Raj. & Ors., WLC (Raj.) 2000 (1) 720 , which were the decisions given by me at Jodhpur and were based on different authorities of this Court as well as of other Courts, but none of them involve such a question which is involved in this case when the petitions as per directions of the leaned Sessions Judge were pending before the leaned Magistrate. I am of very clear view that when the learned Sessions Judge has allowed the petitioners to raise points before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, the petitioners should have better got them decided from him instead of coming directly under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to this Court. This is, in my view, a misuse of the process of Court which cannot be allowed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. I am not expressing my opinion on the merits of the case so that either party may not be prejudiced when the matter is taken up by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate but I definitely feel that it will be a misuse of the process of the Court if this petition is allowed at this stage. 6. Hence, this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. However, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to decide the application of the petitioners dated 9.1.1997 as directed by the learned Sessions Judge in his judgment dated 28.6.1996 as early as possible preferably within two weeks from today. This order is being passed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Petition dismissed. *******