GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner herein (A-7) was tried by the Judicial I Class Magistrate, Gooty, in C. C. No. 36 of 1993 along with A-1 to A-6 and A8 to A-11 for the offences punishable under Sections 3 (k) (i), 17 (1) (a) and 18 (1) (c) of the Insecticides Act. After trial, the learned Magistrate convicted the petitioner and A-1 and A-2 for the offences punishable under Sections 3 (k) (i) and 17 (1) (a) of the Insecticides Act and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000. 00 in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months each, under each count. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge set aside the conviction and sentence of A-1 and A-2, but however confirmed the conviction and sentence of the petitioner herein. Hence, this revision. ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution is that the petitioner herein (A-7) is the Managing Partner of A-6-manufacturing industry. On 21-9-1991, the Joint Director of Agriculture, Anantapur, visited the business premises of A-6 and took samples of pesticides viz. , Piviex-50 and Pividol-50 and sent the same for analysis. The Director, Central Insecticides Laboratory, in turn reported that the pesticide Pividol-50 does not conform to relevant IS Specifications in its active ingredients. Hence, the charge sheet was filed against the petitioner and others. ( 3 ) IN order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P. Ws. 1 and 2 and got marked Exs. P-1 to P-22. ( 4 ) THE main thrust of argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri D. Sudhakar Rao is that the alleged search and seizure made by the Insecticides Officer, who was examined as P. W. 1, is hit by Section 100 Cr. P. C. Though Section 100 Cr. P. C. mandates certain procedure, it is contended that, P. W. 1 did not follow the procedure at all at the time of his search and as such any amount of prejudice was caused to the petitioner. ( 5 ) HEARD the learned Public Prosecutor. P. C. Though Section 100 Cr. P. C. mandates certain procedure, it is contended that, P. W. 1 did not follow the procedure at all at the time of his search and as such any amount of prejudice was caused to the petitioner. ( 5 ) HEARD the learned Public Prosecutor. ( 6 ) IN the light of the above contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is necessary to first look into the evidence of P. W. 1 to find out whether the procedure adopted by him during the search and seizure conducted by him is in accordance with law or not. P. W. 1 stated in his chief examination that he visited the business premises and collected the samples - Pividol-50 and Piviex-50, attached stickers on those samples, covered the same in polythene paper and tied with thread. Though he spoke in so many words about the procedure adopted by him during the course of his search and seizure, during his cross-examination he categorically admitted that he did not make any effort to secure the presence of any independent mediators. He also stated that he did not prepare any panchanama or mahazar. This is the evidence of P. W. 1 with regard to the search and seizure. ( 7 ) ACCORDING to Section 21 (2) of the Insecticides Act, the procedure as contemplated under the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to search and seizure shall be scrupulously followed by the searching officer. Now, it is relevant to extract the provisions of Section 100 Cr. P. C. , hereunder:" 100. Person in charge of closed place to allow search - (1) Whenever any place liable to search or inspection under this Chapter is closed, any person residing in, or being in charge of, such place, shall, on demand of the officer or other person executing the warrant, and on production of the warrant, allow him free ingress thereto, and afford all reasonable facilities for a search therein. (2) If ingress into such place cannot be so obtained, the officer or other person executing the warrant may proceed in the manner provided by sub-section (2) of Sec. 47. (2) If ingress into such place cannot be so obtained, the officer or other person executing the warrant may proceed in the manner provided by sub-section (2) of Sec. 47. (3) Where any person in or about such place is reasonably suspected of concealing about his person any article for which search should be made, such person may be searched and if such person is a woman, the search shall be made by another woman with strict regard to decency. (4) Before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do. (5) The search shall be made in their presence, and a list of all things seized in the course of such search and of the places in which they are respectively found shall be prepared by such officer or other person and signed by such witnesses; but no person witnessing a search under this section shall be required to attend the Court as a witness of the search unless specially summoned by it. (6) The occupant of the place searched, or some person in his behalf, shall, in every instance, be permitted to attend during the search, and a copy of the list prepared under this section, signed by the said witnesses, shall be delivered to such occupant or person. (7) When any person is searched under sub-section (3), a list of all things taken possession of shall be prepared, and a copy thereof shall be delivered to such person. (8) Any person who, without reasonable cause, refuses or neglects to attend and witness a search under this section, when called upon to do so by an order in writing delivered or tendered to him, shall be deemed to have committed an offence under Sec. 187 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ). (8) Any person who, without reasonable cause, refuses or neglects to attend and witness a search under this section, when called upon to do so by an order in writing delivered or tendered to him, shall be deemed to have committed an offence under Sec. 187 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ). " ( 8 ) AS per the above provision of law, it is clear that whenever any officer intends to search any premises, it is incumbent on his part to secure the presence of two independent mediators. If, for any reason, he is unable to secure two independent mediators, he shall record reasons as to why he could not do so. As already observed, in the instant case, P. W. 1, who made the search and seizure and took samples at the relevant point of time, clearly admitted that he did not take steps for securing the presence of two independent mediators and for conducting any panchanama or mahazar. No doubt, non-observance of the procedure mandated under the Criminal Procedure Code may not be fatal in each and every case if the concerned authority who made the search and seizure has given cogent and convincing explanation as to how and why he could not comply with the provisions of Section 100 Cr. P. C. In the instant case, no such explanation is forthcoming from P. W. 1 for not following the procedure contemplated under Section 100 Cr. P. C. Therefore, though P. W. 1 has followed the procedure to some extent while taking samples, he failed to give any plausible reasons for not securing the presence of mediators at the time of his search, which, in my considered view, caused great prejudice to the accused. Further, not preparing the mahazar or panchanama at the relevant point of time would go to the very root of the case which gives rise to a doubt as to whether the search and seizure has taken place as spoken to by the prosecution witnesses. In these circumstances, this court feels it proper to extend the benefit of doubt to the petitioner. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY, this revision is allowed and the judgments of conviction and sentence passed by both the courts below against the petitioner herein are hereby set aside. In these circumstances, this court feels it proper to extend the benefit of doubt to the petitioner. ( 9 ) ACCORDINGLY, this revision is allowed and the judgments of conviction and sentence passed by both the courts below against the petitioner herein are hereby set aside. The petitioner is acquitted of the charges framed for the offences punishable under Sections 3 (k) (i) and 17 (1) (a) of the Insecticides Act. The fine amount paid by him shall be refunded to him forthwith.