Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. The petitioner Balkishan Ginde has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the complaint dated August 25, 1998 filed under Sections 3K(1), 17, 18, 29 & 23 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short, `the Act). The aforesaid complaint has been appended as Annexure P-3 with the petition. 2. A perusal of the complaint shows that on March 10, 1997, the Insecticide Inspector visited the premises of M/s. Zimindara Sewa Centre, Handiaya Bazar, Barnala and drew a sample of insecticide. While taking the sample, a seizure memo of the even date i.e. March 10, 1997 was prepared by him, upon which a declaration was also countersigned by the dealer. As per seizure memo (appended as Annexure P-1 with the petition), the batch number and the manufacturing date of the sample are indicated as 6H-06BPS-004 April 13, 1996 whereas the date of expiry of the aforesaid sample is indicated as April 12, 1997. Upon analysis of the said sample, the insecticide was found to be misbranded and, therefore a complaint was filed by the Insecticides Inspector after the expiry of almost one and half years from the date of taking of the sample. The report of the analyst is dated March 18, 1997 and has also been appended as Annexure P-2 with the petition. 3. The petitioner is the Manager (Quality Assurance) of the company M/s. Bayer India Ltd. 4. A similar petition being Criminal Misc. No. 28267-M of 1998 filed by the company M/s. Bayer India Ltd. and its Manager Planning and the Regional Administrative Manager was allowed by the order dated August 5, 2002 and the complaint in question qua the aforesaid persons was quashed. The aforesaid complaint was quashed primarily on the contention raised by Shri Aman Kashyap, the learned counsel for the petitioner therein that the shelf life of the sample of the insecticide was indicated as April 12, 1997 but the complaint itself was filed on August 25, 1998 and in these circumstances the right of the aforesaid petitioners to have a re-analysis from the Central Insecticides Laboratory in terms of Section 24(4) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 has been lost. 5. 5. Shri Aman Kashyap, the learned counsel for the present petitioner has again raised the same plea and prayed that in view of the aforesaid judgment dated August 5, 2002 passed by this Court complaint against the present petitioner is also liable to be quashed. 6. On the other hand, Shri Sandeep Jain, the learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab has submitted that a specific plea has been raised by the respondents in paragraph No. 5 of the reply to the present petition wherein it has been stated that the second sample of the aforesaid insecticides was sent to the Central Insecticide Laboratory, Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine & Storage Faridabad on April 7, 1997 which was received in the aforesaid laboratory on April 8, 1997 on top priority. The aforesaid sample was sent on top priority for re-analysis under Section 24 of the Act. 7. According to Shri Jain, after the aforesaid second sample was sent to the Central Insecticide Laboratory the plea of any right of the petitioner having been lost did not arise. 8. I have considered this submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. According to me, the plea raised by Shri Sandeep Jain is without any basis. In the reply filed by the respondents, it is not mentioned that at any stage that the aforesaid second sample which was sent to the Central Insecticide Laboratory on April 7, 1997 and which is stated to have been received by the aforesaid laboratory on April 8, 1997 was ever analysed prior to April 12, 1997 i.e. before the date of expiry. It is not even mentioned at all as to whether the aforesaid sample was actually analysed by the Central Insecticide Laboratory or not and what was the report of the aforesaid analysis if any such analysis was ever conducted. I find that the plea in this regard is totally vague. 9. In these circumstances, the judgment dated August 5, 2002 fully applies to the facts of the present case. For the reasons given in the aforesaid judgment, the complaint dated August 25, 1998 Annexure P-3 is also quashed qua the present petitioner. Petition allowed.