JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal misc. petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused-petitioners, who are Manufacturers with the prayer that the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 83/92 State v. Mahendra Kumar Naresh Kumar & Ors . for the offence under section 17(1)(a) r/w 29(1)(a) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1968') pending in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sura tgarh Distt. Sri. Ganganagar be quashed. 2. It arises in the following circumstances:- On 18.2.1992, a complaint was filed by Shankarlal, Insecticide Inspector IGNP, Suratgarh District Sri Ganganagar in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Suratgarh against the present accused-petitioners. who are Manufacturers and apart from them, against M/s. Mahendra Kumar Naresh Kumar, Suratgarh and Roop Chand stating inter alia that on 26.9.1990 Insecticide Inspector inspected the shop of M/s. Mahendra Kumar Naresh Kumar, Dhan Mandi, Suratgarh and took sample of the insecticide Cypermethrin 10% EC for the purpose of analysis 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 Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad (Haryana) through letter dated 26.9.1990 by the Insecticide Inspector, IGNP, Suratgarh and the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad (Haryana) gave its report on 10.12.1990, in which it was reported that the sample does not conform to the relevant is specification in the active ingredient content requirement and it was found to have higher active ingredient content and was, therefore, misbranded. It was also stated in the report that batch number of the insecticide was 138 and date of manufacturing was Sept., 1990 and date of expiry was Aug. 1992. When the sample was not found in accordance with the prescribed standard, a notice dated 22.12.1990 along with the report of the Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad (Haryana) was given by the Insecticide Inspector, IGNP, Suratgarh to the dealer M/s. Mahendra Kumar Naresh Kumar, Suratgarh and on 2.2.1991, a further notice was given to dealer as well as present accused-petitioners, who are manufacturers.Thereafter, after obtaining sanction for prosecution, the Insecticide Inspector, IGNP, Suratgarh filed the complaint on 18.2.1992 against the present accused-petitioners and dealers M/ s. Mahendra Kumar Naresh Kumar and Roop Chand in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Suratgarh.On the same day i.e. on 18.2.1992, the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh took cognizance against the accused-petitioners and others mentioned in the complaint for the offence under section 17(1)(a) r/w 29(1)(a) of the Act of 1968.4. In this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., the main contention of the learned counsel for the accused-petitioners is that since the sample was directly sent by the Insecticide Inspector to the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad (Haryana) for analysis, therefore, valuable right of the accused-petitioners,who are manufacturers, to get the sample re-tested by Central Insecticide Laboratory has been denied and it has prejudiced their defence and thus, on this ground alone, the proceedings against them are liable to be quashed.5. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused-petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.6. From perusing the record of the present case, it appears : (1) That on 26.9.1990, sample of insecticide in question, was taken by the Insecticide Inspector, IGNP, Suratgarh from M/s. Mahendra Kumar Naresh Kumar, Dhan Mandi, Suratgarh, who was dealer and this accused is not party before this Court. (2) That the date of manufacturing of the insecticide in question was Sept. 1990 and date of expiry was Aug. 1992. (3) That the said sample was sent to Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad (Haryana) and the report of the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad (Haryana) is dated 10.12.1990, where it was reported that the sample was misbranded. (4) That thereafter, notices were given to both dealer as well as manufacturers by the Insecticide Inspector, IGNP, Suratgarh. (5) That after obtaining sanction, a complaint was filed by the Insecticide Inspector, IGNP, Suratgarh on 18.2.1992 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Suratgarh. (6) That on the same day i.e. on 18.2.1992, the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh took cognizance against the present accused-petitioners and others mentioned in the complaint. (7) That in para No. 3 of the complaint, it is clearly mentioned that the sample was directly sent to the Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad (Haryana) for analysis and the report of the Central Insecticide Laboratory is dated 10.12.1990. It means in this case, Insecticide Inspector instead of sending the sample to the State Pesticide Testing Laboratory for analysis, directly sent the sample to the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad (Haryana).8. It means in this case, Insecticide Inspector instead of sending the sample to the State Pesticide Testing Laboratory for analysis, directly sent the sample to the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad (Haryana).8. Now the question that arises for consideration is whether by sending the sample directly to the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad (Haryana) for analysis, can it be said that the accused-petitioners have been denied the valuable right to get the sample re-analysed by the Central Insecticide Laboratory and on this ground alone, the proceedings against them can be quashed or not.9. In Gupta Chemicals Private Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., (2000) IAC 222 , this Court has held that where the sample was sent by the Insecticides Inspector directly to the Central Insecticides Laboratory for the first analysis, this has frustrated and defeated the intent and purpose of Section 24 of the Act of 1968, which confers an important and valuable right to the accused to get the counter sample tested in the Central Insecticides Laboratory and in such circumstances, the criminal complaints filed against the petitioners of that case suffer from patent inherent and legal infirmity and dragging the prosecution then would clearly amount to abuse of process of the Court and on this ground alone, criminal proceedings in that case were quashed.10. Earlier to that decision, similar view was taken by this Court in Hindustan Ciba Geigy Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition Nos. 470/92 & 235/94 decided on 26.9.1994 and it was held in that case that Insecticide Inspector is duty bound to send the sample of the insecticide for test or analysis to the Insecticide Analyst only and that he is not authorised or empou "red to send the sample for test or analysis directly to the Central Insecticide Laboratory and in that case, the complaint was quashed. For convenience, para 17 of the judgment is quoted below : "Hence, it is abundantly apparent that the second sample taken for test or analysis can be sent by the Court either of its own motion or in its discretion at the request of either of the complainant or the accused to the C.I.L. The word "accused" used in sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Act is wife and comprehensive and includes the dealer from whom the sample was taken, or the manufacturer or any other person arrayed as accused in the criminal complaint. Therefore, right of getting the sample reanalysed by the C.I.L. has not only been given to the person from whom the sample has been taken out to other persons also who have been arrayed is accused in the criminal complaint of the complainant. Thus, the accused facing criminal prosecution under the Act has a valuable right to controvert the contents of the report of the Insecticide Analyst, by getting the sample re-analysed by the C.I.L." 11. In another decision in S.N. Chemicals (M/s.) v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2000 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 22 , this Court took the similar view.12. Following the aforesaid decisions, since in the present case also the sample was directly sent by the Insecticide Inspector to the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad (Haryana) for analysis, therefore, the present accused-petitioners have been denied the valuable right to get the sample re-analysed by the Central Insecticide Laboratory and thus prejudiced their defence and in these circumstances, the criminal proceedings against them are liable to be quashed.Accordingly, this misc. petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed and the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 83/92 State v. Mahendra Kumar Naresh Kumar & Ors . for the offence under section 17(1)(a) r/w 29(1)(a) of the Act of 1968 pending in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suratgarh Distt. Sri Ganganagar so far as they relate to the present accused-petitioners are quashed.Petition allowed. *******