Judgment J.S.Narang, J. 1. The petitioner is a manufacturing concern and is manufacturing Anilophos 30% and other Insecticides/Pesticides. It is alleged that a sample of Anilophos was taken on 19.6.1995 from the unit of the petitioner and that a memorandum in this regard was supplied to the petitioner. The date of manufacturing the insecticides was June, 1994 and the expiry date May, 1996 and that the batch number has also been specified. The sample taken by the Inspector was sent to the Punjab Insecticide Quality Control Laboratory, Amritsar. On analysis, the sample was found misbranded. 2. Resultantly, the petitioners were served with show cause notice dated 11.7.1995 to which the petitioners gave detailed reply vide communication dated 17.7.1995. The report of the analyst has been contested and the petitioner expressed its intention that counter sample be sent to the Central Insecticides Laboratory under intimation to the petitioner so that the re- testing charges may be deposited by the petitioner. It has been reiterated by the petitioner that Anilophos 30% EC manufactured by them conform to the quality norms and that the report of the analyst is contested as no complaint in respect of their product has been received from any quarter. It shall be apposite to note the excerpt from the relevant paragraph of the communication, copy Annexure P-3, which reads as under : "Under the above circumstances we hereby express our intention by adducing the evidence in controversion of the test report of the Senior Analyst, PAS-I, Insecticide Testing Laboratory, near Tehsil Office, Amritsar. As per the provisions of Insecticides Act, 1968 Section 24(3) and 24(4) and rules made thereunder kindly arrange to send the counter sample for retesting of the said product in Central Insecticides Laboratory under intimation to us, so that the retesting charges may be remitted to you. It is to kindly inform you that Anilophos 30% EC manufactured by us is well known for its quality and efficacy. We have not received any complaint of this product from the farmers of your State so far. We, therefore, request you to kindly pass an order directing that the matter is closed. We once again request you to kindly look into the matter and oblige." 3. We have not received any complaint of this product from the farmers of your State so far. We, therefore, request you to kindly pass an order directing that the matter is closed. We once again request you to kindly look into the matter and oblige." 3. Despite the request having been made by the petitioner as envisaged under Section 24(3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), admittedly, no sample was sent to the Central Insecticides Laboratory but the complaint was filed on 11.3.1996. Admittedly, the shelf life of the product was to expire in May, 1996. The petitioner has been required to face prosecution under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Act read with rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971. The perusal of the complaint shows that the right as envisaged under Section 24(3) of the Act was not permitted to be availed of by the petitioner as nothing in this regard has been averred in the complaint, copy of which has been appended as Annexure P- 4. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the right as envisaged under Section 24(3) despite the request having been made, not granted to the petitioner, the complainants are not justified in filing the complaint and that the proceedings initiated in pursuant thereto are not sustainable. The aforesaid provision reads as under :- "24. Report of Insecticide Analyst. - (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 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. It is further argued that non-compliance of the statutory provisions has jeopardised the rights of the petitioner and has been subjected to the prosecution. The reading of the complaint shows that such right has been admittedly denied to the petitioner despite the request having been made as envisaged under the Act. resultantly, the complaint and the proceedings are not sustainable and the same deserve to be quashed. 6. On the other hand, learned Additional A.G. Punjab has argued that the petitioner was aware of the fact that shelf life product was to expire in May, 1996 and that complaint had been filed in the month of March, 1996 and that the petitioner could have very well filed application before the Court for sending the sample to the Central Insecticide Laboratory as envisaged under the provisions of the Act. Since no such request/application had been filed by the petitioner, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief accordingly. 7. I am afraid the argument of learned Additional A.G. Punjab is devoid of any merit, the perusal of sub-section (3) of the Section 24 of the Act shows that the petitioner can ask for re-test of the part of the sample by making a request to the Inspector or the Court, resultantly, the petitioner has the option to make a request to the Inspector or to the Court. In the case at hand, it is decipherable from the record that the reply (copy Annexure P-3) which was sent to the show cause, whereby the petitioner has made specific request that part of the sample should be sent for re-testing to the Central Insecticides Laboratory but no such opportunity was granted to the petitioner. Neither any intimation was sent to the petitioner for depositing requisite charges for the re-test. The right enjoined under the aforesaid provisions has been completely ignored and the complaint has been filed without giving the liberty to the petitioner in respect of re-test of the sample. In view of the above, I find that the complaint is not sustainable, resultantly, the complaint dated 9.3.1996 is quashed and so also the proceedings initiated in pursuant thereto before the Judicial Magistrate. No order as to costs.