JUDGMENT 1. - By way of instant petition u/s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the petitioners seek to quash the proceedings against them pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Marwar Jn., for offence u/s. 29(1) (a) of the Insecticides Act. 2. The brief facts giving rise to instant petition are that on 8.11.95 one Govind Singh purporting to be the Insecticides Inspector collected samples of B.H.C. 10% Dust from the shop of petitioner No. 1 M/s. Choudhary Khad Beej Bhandar, Marwar, Jn., the insecticide being of Batch No. B-10-568, the date of manufacture being 2.10.95 and the date of expiry being 1.10.97 and manufactured by the 4th petitioner M/s. Singhal Pesticides, Agra (U.P.), for the purpose of getting analyzed as it was suspected to be of sub-standard. The sample was sent to the Govt. Analyst, Durgapura on 14.11.95. The sample was reported to be misbranded. A show cause notice u/s. 24(2) of the Insecticides Act was issued to the petitioners No. 1 to 4 on 1.2.1996 calling upon to show cause as to why a legal action be not taken against them. The petitioners submitted separate replies to the show cause notice. A request was also made for arranging reanalysis of the counter sample. As far as the petitioners No. 1 is concerned the ultimate prayer in reply to the show cause notice was made as follows: "However, we request your goodself to kindly arrange to reanalysis of the counter sample from the Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad under the provision of Section 24(3) of the Insecticide Act for which the necessary charges will be paid by us if legally required. We are sure, that on analysis of the refee sample by Central Insecticide Lab. Faridabad it would meet the required ISI standard." Similarly the manufacturing Company namely M/s. Singhal Pesticides also gave reply to the show cause notice and made prayer as follows:- "However, we request your goodself to kindly arrange to reanalysis of the counter sample from the Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad under the provisions of section 24(3) of the Insecticide Act for which the necessary charges will be paid by us if legally required. We are sure, that on analysis of the refee sample by Central Insecticide Lab. We are sure, that on analysis of the refee sample by Central Insecticide Lab. Faridabad it would meet the required ISI standard." After obtaining the necessary sanction a complaint was filed against the petitioners on 17.5.96 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Marwar Jn. An application was filed by the Insecticides Inspector for sending the sample as desired by the parties to the Central Insecticides Laboratory on the same day. However, the Court did not pass any order for sending the sample for analysis. The date of expiry of the sample is 1.10.97. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the entire proceedings are vitiated inasmuch as the valuable right to get the sample reanalysed has been denied. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that this aspect of the case cannot be examined at this stage. 4. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the record. As per Section 24(3) the report of the Insecticide Analyst is to the evidence of the facts mentioned therein and it is conclusive in nature subject to the condition that the person concerned from whom the same was take does not notify the intention to lead evidence in controversion of report and does not notify such intention in writing within 28 days to the Inspector or the Court. Sub-section (4) provides where a person has notified his intention u/s. 24(3), the Court may cause the sample produced before the Court u/s. 22(6) to be sent for test or analysis to the Central Insecticides Laboratory and the report in writing and signed or under the authority of the Director of the Central Insecticides Laboratory, is to be conclusive. In the instant case the shelf life of the sample expired on 1.10.97. Even though the report from the analyst was received on 6.1.96 but no order was passed during the shelf life of the sample for sending the same for re-analysis to the Central Insecticides Laboratory. It is held by this Court and the various Courts that the provision of Section 22(6) is mandatory that one portion of the sample was to be delivered to the person from whom it was taken and the omission to do so as happened in this case, is fatal to the prosecution. 5. It is held by this Court and the various Courts that the provision of Section 22(6) is mandatory that one portion of the sample was to be delivered to the person from whom it was taken and the omission to do so as happened in this case, is fatal to the prosecution. 5. That apart as is evident from a plain reading of Sub-Section (2) of 33 of the Act that merely be a responsible person is not enough, there must be shown that the accused was responsible to the company for the conduct of business of the said company. Sub-section (2) of Section 33 further makes it clear that when it is proved that the offence was committed with the consent or connivance, which can be attributed to any neglect on the part of the Director, Manager, Secretary or other person of the company, he shall be liable to be prosecuted and punished. In the instant case, there is no allegation that the present petitioners were anywhere responsible to the company for the conduct of business. In view of the aforesaid on both the counts, to my mind, the proceedings against the petitioners is abuse of process of the Court and the same is liable to be quashed. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion the petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioners being Cr. Case No. 130/96 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Marwar Jn., District, Pali for offence u/s. 29(1) (a) of the Insecticides Act stand quashed and set aside.Petition allowed. *******