Judgment V.M.Jain, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., filed by the accused petitioners, seeking quashment of the criminal complaint under the provisions of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and all subsequent proceedings taken thereon. 2. In the criminal complaint, copy Annexure P1, filed by the State of Haryana through the Sub Divisional Agricultural Officer, against the accused petitioners and other accused, it was alleged that the premises of M/s B.D. Pesto Traders were inspected on 2.7.1992 and sample of Butachlore 50% EC, which was manufactured by M/s Ajay Fertiliser Chemicals Bombay Pvt. Ltd. (petitioner No. 1) was taken and was packed and sealed according to the provisions of the Act and rules framed thereunder. It was alleged that the said sample was sent to the Senior Analyst Quality Control (Insecticide) Laboratory, Karnal for analysis and the sample was found misbranded, as the sample was having Butachlore 18.99% instead of 50%, as per the report of the Anayst. It was further alleged that copy of the analysis report was sent to the dealer alongwith the show cause notice on 20.7.1992 and the reply was received on 6.8.1992. It was alleged that accused 1 to 3 (dealer and its partner) had stocked and sold the misbranded insecticide, while accused 4 and 5 (manufacturer and its marketing manager) had manufactured the misbranded insecticide. It was alleged that all the accused had violated various provisions of the Act. It was further alleged that the complainant applied to the Director of Agriculture, Haryana for sanction to institute prosecution against the accused and vide letter dated 27.11.1992, the Director gave his consent/permission for prosecuting the accused. It was accordingly prayed that all the accused be summoned and punished accordingly to law. 3. Annexure P2 is the copy of the show cause notice dated 20.7.1992, sent by the Deputy Director, Agriculture to M/s B.D. Pesto Traders (dealer), while Annexure P3 is the copy of the reply on behalf of the dealer. In the said reply, a request was made on behalf of the dealer for sending the second part of the sample to the Central Insecticide Laboratory for re-analysis under Section 24(3) of the Act. Annexure P4 is the consent order dated 8.2.1993 issued by the Director of Agriculture, Haryana for prosecuting the accused. 4. In the said reply, a request was made on behalf of the dealer for sending the second part of the sample to the Central Insecticide Laboratory for re-analysis under Section 24(3) of the Act. Annexure P4 is the consent order dated 8.2.1993 issued by the Director of Agriculture, Haryana for prosecuting the accused. 4. In the petition, it was alleged by the accused petitioners (manufacturer and its marketing manager) that the Butachlore 50% E.C. in question was manufactured in June 1991 and was to expire in May 1993. It was further alleged that after the Analyst had reported that the sample was found misbranded, copy of the Analysts report was never sent to the petitioners (manufacturer), even though it was mandatory. It was further alleged that the complaint was filed on 9.9.1997 and that even though the dealer had requested for re-analysis of the sample, yet the sample was not got re-analysed from the Central Insecticide Laboratory. It was further alleged that even though the expiry date was may 1993, yet the complaint was filed on 9.9.1997 and thereby the petitioners were deprived of their right to get the sample re-analysed, as the shelf life of the insecticide was over. It was further alleged that the sanction granted by Director, Agriculture to prosecute the petitioners was issued in a mechanical manner without any application of mind. 5. In the written reply filed by the Quality Control Inspector, it was admitted that the Analysts report alongwith show cause notice was sent to dealer M/s. B.D. Pesto Traders. It was further alleged that the complaint was filed on 30.7.1993 and not on 9.9.1997, as alleged. It was further alleged that even though report of the Analyst was sent to the dealer alongwith show cause notice, yet the dealer never approached the competent court for obtaining an order for sending the second part of the sample for re-analysis from Central Insecticide Laboratory. It was further alleged that since M/s B.D. Pesto Traders was the agent of manufacturer, it would be presumed that the dealer had informed the manufacturer about the result of the sample. 6. No one came present on behalf of the petitioners when the case was taken up for arguments. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the State and have gone through the record carefully. 8. 6. No one came present on behalf of the petitioners when the case was taken up for arguments. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the State and have gone through the record carefully. 8. In the written reply filed by the Quality Control Inspector, on behalf of the State, it has not been disputed that the dealer M/s B.D. Pesto Traders had sent the reply dated 6.8.1992, copy Annexure P3, to the show cause notice. In fact, in the written statement, there is a reference to the "Note" given in para 6 of the written reply. Thus, the receipt of the reply, copy Annexure P3, from the dealer has not been disputed by the State. The stand taken by the State in the written reply is that the dealer should have approached the court of competent jurisdiction for getting the sample re-analysed. However, in my opinion, this plea taken by the State of Haryana is contrary to the provisions of the Act. Under Section 24(3) of the Act, it is provided that any document purporting to be a report signed by a Insecticide Analyst shall be evidence of facts stated therein and such evidence shall be conclusive, unless the person from whom the sample was taken has within 28 days of the receipt of the 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. 9. From a perusal of the above, it would be clear that under Section 24(3) of the Act, dealer was competent to notify in writing to the Insecticide Inspector or the court for getting the second part of the sample re-analysed, as required under Section 24(4) of the Act. It was not necessary for the dealer to have approached only the court for this purpose but his intimation to the Insecticide Inspector would also be enough and it was the duty of the Insecticide Inspector to have sent the second part of the sample to the Central Insecticide Laboratory for re-analysis. However, in this case, this was not done. Thus, the accused could not get second part of the sample re- analysed from the Central Insecticide Laboratory. 10. However, in this case, this was not done. Thus, the accused could not get second part of the sample re- analysed from the Central Insecticide Laboratory. 10. Further more, in the present case, admittedly no notice was given to the petitioners (manufacturer and their marketing manager) about the sample having been found to be misbranded. Even as per State, the complaint was filed in the court in the month of July 1993, whereas the expiry date of the insecticide was May 1993. In this manner, admittedly, complaint was filed after the expiry of shelf life of the insecticide. In this view of the matter the manufacturer could into have exercised his right to get the sample re- analysed. 11. In State of Haryana v. Unique Farmaid P. Ltd., 1999(4) RCR(Crl.) 540 (SC) : 1999 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 1404, the Insecticide Inspector had visited the shop premises of a firm and drew samples of an insecticide, manufactured by M/s Unique Farmaid P. Ltd. One part of the sample was sent to the Senior Analyst, Quality Control Laboratory (Insecticides) for testing. The said laboratory, in its analysis report, found the sample to be misbranded. Accordingly, notices alongwith analysis report of the sample were sent to the firm (from whom the sample was taken) as also to manufacturer. Thereupon, manufacturer sent a reply, denying the allegation and notifying its intention to adduce evidence to support its contention and requested to get the sample tested from Central Insecticide Laboratory. However, without adverting to the said request of the manufacturer, the Insecticide Inspector filed criminal complaint against several parties, including the manufacturer. Thereafter, the manufacture and its Sales Officer approached the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., read with Article 227 of the Constitution. It was contended that on the one hand their request for re-testing of the sample was ignored by the Insecticide Inspector and on the other by the time they were asked to appear in court to stand for trial, the shelf life of the insecticide, of which sample was taken, had already expired and in this manner they were deprived of their valuable right of their defence. High Court upheld this contention of the manufacturer and qaushed the complaint. High Court upheld this contention of the manufacturer and qaushed the complaint. In appeal before the Honble Supreme Court, the State of Haryana stated that (i) request for re-testing of the sample ought to have been made to the court and not to the Insecticide Inspector, (ii) no defence other than prescribed under Section 30 of the Act could be allowed to be raised, and (iii) the shelf life of the sample was not relevant as the Act did not prescribe any expiry date. Rejecting these contentions and dismissing the appeal, it was held by the Honble Supreme Court that it could not be said that the expiry date of the sample was not relevant and it also could not be said that besides Section 30 of the Act, other defences were not also open to the accused and where the procedure for testing sample had been contravened to the prejudice of the accused, he certainly had the right to seek dismissal of the complaint. It was further held by the Honble Supreme Court that in order to safeguard the right of the accused to have the sample tested from Central Insecticide Laboratory, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to file the complaint expeditiously so that the right of the accused is not lost. In the reported case, it was found by the Honble Supreme Court that by the time the accused were asked to appear before the court, the expiry date of the insecticide was already over and sending of the sample to the Central Insecticide Laboratory at that stage would be of no consequence. Therefore, in view of Section 24(3) and 24(4) of the Act, the report of the Insecticide Analyst was not conclusive. A valuable right had been conferred on the accused to have the sample tested from Central Insecticide Laboratory and in the circumstances of the case, the accused have been deprived of that right, thus prejudicing them in their defence. It was further held that in these circumstance, the High Court was right in concluding that it would be an abuse of the process of the court if the prosecution was continuing against the accused persons. The High Court rightly quashed the criminal complaint. It was further held that in these circumstance, the High Court was right in concluding that it would be an abuse of the process of the court if the prosecution was continuing against the accused persons. The High Court rightly quashed the criminal complaint. The law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court, in The State of Punjab v. National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd., 1997 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 312 : 1998(4) RCR(Crl.) 578 (SC), was relied upon. 12. From a perusal of the above, it would be clear that the petitioners being the manufacturers are being prosecuted even without giving them the opportunity to get the second part of the sample re-analysed. The request made by the dealer to send the second part of sample to Central Insecticide Laboratory for re-analysis was also not acceded to and the criminal complaint was filed without getting the second part of the sample re-analysed. Further more, the criminal complaint was filed after the expiry of the shelf life of the insecticide, from which the sample was taken and thus the accused petitioners were deprived of their right to get the second part of the sample re-analysed form the court. 13. In view of the above, in my opinion, the criminal complaint and all subsequent proceedings taken thereon against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, present petition is allowed and the criminal complaint, copy Annexure P1 and all subsequent proceedings taken thereon are hereby quashed.