Judgment K.S.Garewal, J. 1. The Insecticide Act, 1968 regulates import, manufacture, sale, transport, distribution and use of insecticides with a view to prevent risk to human beings or animals and for matters connected therewith. The Insecticide Inspectors have the power, among other powers enumerated in Section 21, to take samples of any insecticide and send them for analysis to Insecticide Analysts for test in the prescribed manner. Thereafter the Insecticide Analyst has to, within a period of sixty days, deliver to the Insecticide Inspector a singed report in duplicate in the prescribed form. The Insecticide Inspector on receipt thereof is required to deliver a copy of the report to the person from whom the sample was taken and retain the other copy for use in any prosecution in respect of the sample. The report shall be evidence of the facts stated therein and shall be conclusive unless the person from whom sample was taken has, within twenty eight days of its receipt, notified that he intends to adduce evidence to controvert it. Unless the sample has already been tested in the Central Insecticides Laboratory, when a person notified his intention of controverting the report, the court may on its own motion or in its discretion at the request either of the complainant or of the accused send the sample for analysis to the Central Insecticides Laboratory. The report of the laboratory signed by its Director shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein and costs of the analysis shall be borne by the complainant or the accused as the courts directs. 2. Once a sample has been found mis-branded by the Insecticide Analyst, the person from whom the sample was taken has a statutory right to obtain a second opinion from the Central Insecticides Laboratory. This right has been provided by law and has been upheld by the apex court in State of Punjab v. National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. 1998(4) Recent Criminal Reports 578 : [1997(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 353 (SC)] and State of Haryana v. Unique Farmaid P. Ltd., 1999(4) RCR (Criminal) 540: [1999(4) All India Criminal Law Reporter 399 (SC)]. 3. 3. The sole question which arise for consideration in these two criminal revision filed by Northern Mineral Limited and another (Criminal Revision No.170 of 2000) and Apex Minerals Pvt. Ltd. and another (Criminal Revision No.106 of 2000) is whether the proceedings before the criminal courts commenced on the basis of complaints filed by the respective Inspectors are liable to be quashed on the ground That the right to have the second sample analysed had been defeated because the complaints were filed after the date of expiry of the insecticide had passed. This common question shall be disposed of by this judgment. In the Northern Minerals case a sample of Monocrotophos 36 SL was drawn from M/s. Jindal Traders, Rajpura on September 10, 1993. The insecticide had been manufactured by Northern Minerals Limited in September 1992, its "shelf life" was 1-1/2 years and it was to expire in February 1994. The sample was sent to Regional Pesticide Testing Laboratory, Chandigarh and as per report dated October 13, 1993, the active ingredient content of Monocrotophos 36 SL was only 26.1% and acidity was 3.5%. Hence the sample was found not to conform to ISI specification and had been mis-branded. Consequently a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner company on November 1, 1993 and it was replied to on November 17, 1993. The petitioner company asserted that the insecticide manufactured by it had content of 36.3%. After receipt of the show cause notice it was again analysed and found to contain 36.02%. Therefore, the insecticide conformed to ISI specifications and had not been mis-branded. Furthermore, it was asserted that the petitioner intended to adduced evidence in contravention of the report and requested that the show cause notice be withdrawn. Lastly, it was asserted that there had been no complaint regarding this product about its quality or efficacy. It is important to note that the petitioner did not make any request for causing a second sample to be sent for analysis to the Central Insecticides Laboratory. Sanction for prosecution was granted by Joint Director, Agriculture Plant Protection on February 23, 1994 and the complaint was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala on March 16, 1994. Vide order dated November 13, 1999 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala dismissed the application of the petitioner under section 245 Cr. P.C. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. 4. Vide order dated November 13, 1999 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala dismissed the application of the petitioner under section 245 Cr. P.C. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. 4. The corresponding chronology of Apex Minerals case may now be noticed. Sample of Monocrotophos 36 SL was drawn on August 6, 1992, it had been manufactured in July 1992 and its expiry date was June, 1993. Sample had been manufactured by the petitioner company and had been drawn from the premises of M/s. Om Parkash Pawan Kumar, Mansa. It was analysed by the Insecticide Analyst and found to be substandard as it contained Monocrotophos 32.65% and did not conform to ISI specification. Show cause notice was sent to the petitioner on September 14, 1992 and it was replied to by the petitioner on September 28, 1992. It was submitted that the sample had failed due to manual error, there was no malafide intention, the container was not as per specification and was inferior quality contamination could have occurred at the time of taking the sample, the details of the protocol while testing sample were requested for and re-analysis of the third sample through Central Insecticide Laboratory was also asked. Complaint was filed on January 20, 1994 after the insecticide had expired. The application for dropping the proceedings was dismissed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa on November 27, 1999. Feeling aggrieved petitioner has come up in revision petition. 5. Counsel for the petitioners have laid much stress on the right of the petitioners getting defeated as the respective complaints had been filed after the life of the insecticide had expired. The petitioners have argued that until a complaint is filed in court, they could not seek a second analysis from the Central Insecticide Laboratory. Since the complaints had been filed after the expiry date their right stood demolished and consequently serious prejudice had been caused to them and the proceedings deserves to be quashed. Reference has been made to M/s. Unique Farmaid Private Ltd. & another v. State of Haryana, 1996 (2) All Instant Judgments 648, M/s. Om Parkash Beej v. State of Haryana, 1996(2) Recent Criminal Reports 551 M/s. Artee Minerals v. State of Punjab, 1997(4) RCR (Criminal) 620 : [1998(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 574 (Pb. Reference has been made to M/s. Unique Farmaid Private Ltd. & another v. State of Haryana, 1996 (2) All Instant Judgments 648, M/s. Om Parkash Beej v. State of Haryana, 1996(2) Recent Criminal Reports 551 M/s. Artee Minerals v. State of Punjab, 1997(4) RCR (Criminal) 620 : [1998(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 574 (Pb. & Hry.)], M/s. Pesto-Chem(India) Ltd. v. State of Punjab, 1999(1) RCR (Criminal) 681, Vishwa Nath Proprietor Shiv Beej Bhandar v. State of Haryana, 2000(1) RCR (Criminal) 106 and Northern Mineral Ltd. v. State of Punjab, 2000(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 189: [2000(3) All India Criminal Law Reporter 797 (Pb. & Hry.)]. 6. On behalf of the respondents reliance has been placed on M/s. Hindustan Chemicals Industries v. State of Punjab, 1997(2) RCR (Criminal) 192 and M/s. Hybird Seeds and Pesticides Abohar v. State of Punjab 1997(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 768. The authorities cited by the petitioners are sought to be distinguished on the ground that the petitioners had not seriously sought reanalysis before the expiry date and could not now complain that their right for second opinion had been defeated. 7. The composition of the insecticide, its percentage, its effectiveness uptil the date of the expiry and subsequent to the expiry are all scientific questions. The best person to answer these question is the Insecticide Analyst. However, it is common sense that the composition and percentage of the insecticide on the date of expiry would not change radically immediately after the date has passed. It is possible that the insecticide may loss some effectiveness, potency and toxicity with the passage of time, the composition of its chemicals may undergo some chemical reactions and transform into comparatively harmless compounds which may effect its strength but it is certainly not going to convert into distilled water after the date expires. The Insecticide Analyst should be in the position to properly analyse the sample and determine its composition before the expiry date. Such an exercise can probably be undertaken even after expiry. "Shelf life" of food stuffs can be easily understood as well all know that food goes bad after sometime. Butter turns rancid and milk becomes sour. The term "shelf life" is probably a misnomer for chemicals. It would be unfair to the prosecution if the shelf life of the insecticide is taken as the bench mark and any prosecution launched after shelf life has expired is quashed. 8. Butter turns rancid and milk becomes sour. The term "shelf life" is probably a misnomer for chemicals. It would be unfair to the prosecution if the shelf life of the insecticide is taken as the bench mark and any prosecution launched after shelf life has expired is quashed. 8. Insecticides are purchased by big and small farmers to protect their crop from infestation of pests which destroy the fruit of their labour. When an insecticide manufacturer sells sub-standard insecticide, it has two fold effects. Firstly, the fanner who purchases it pays a heavy price. Secondly, the insecticides proves ineffective against the attack of pests. The manufacturer profits at the costs of the consumer. It is a national loss and a scam of huge proportions. If the manufacturers further slips a few rupees into the pocket of the Insecticide Inspector and gets the filing of the complaint delayed then he may even get away Scot free if the arguments of the petitioners are accepted. 9. Once the petitioners had come to know that their samples had not passed the prescribed test they should have moved quickly to establish their innocence by getting the second analysis done from the Central Insecticide Laboratory. In both the cases the petitioner filed inane replies to the show cause notices but took no further steps. They simply bided their time and waited for the expiry date to pass. Thereafter they were on safe wicket. This kind of an unhappy situation should not have been allowed to prevail. 10. The upshot of the above discussion is that the weight of the judicial opinion of the Honble Supreme Court of India and of this Court favours the petitioners case re-analysis is a valuable right which gets defeated if the complaint is filed after the expiry date and consequently the proceedings must be dropped. The question which is now required to be considered is whether the petitioners exercised their right to seek re-analysis or not. The replies to the show-cause notices indicate that Apex Mineral did seek re-analysis whereas Northern Minerals did not. Re-analysis by Central Insecticide Laboratory was done in neither case. Where a party does not ask for a second analysis it should not be permitted to complain that its right of re-analysis has been defeated. This grievance can only be valid if a party seeks re-analysis before expiry but was denied this right. 11. Re-analysis by Central Insecticide Laboratory was done in neither case. Where a party does not ask for a second analysis it should not be permitted to complain that its right of re-analysis has been defeated. This grievance can only be valid if a party seeks re-analysis before expiry but was denied this right. 11. Consequently, Northern Minerals case must fail. Criminal revision No. 170 of 2000 is dismissed. Apex Minerals did seek re-analysis which was denied, therefore, criminal revision No. 106 of 2000 succeeds, criminal complaint as well as all consequent proceedings before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mansa are hereby quashed.