Judgment Satish Kumar Mittal, J. 1. In the instant petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the complaint filed by the Insecticide Inspector under Section 29 of the Insecticide Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act) and Rule made thereunder for violation of Section 3(k)(i) of the Act, and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. 2. The petitioner M/s. United Pesticides through its Director is engaged in manufacturing of insecticides and pesticides holding a regular licence issued by the Central Insecticide Board, Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi in regard to manufacturing of insecticides and pesticides. On 18.9.1993, the Insecticide Inspector, Hisar had drawn a sample of monocrotophos 36% SL bearing batch No. UPLM/3, manufactured by the petitioner company, from the business premises of M/s. Shankar Lal Jai Parkash, Bhattu Mandi, Hisar, who was the dealer of the petitioner company. The said sample was divided into different parts, of which one was given to the aforesaid dealer and another was sent to the Senior Analyst, Quality Control Laboratory, Karnal, for analysis. After analysis, the said sample was found to be misbranded as it did not conform to ISI specifications, and instead of prescribed limit of 35% i.e. permissible tolerance limit, the active ingredients were found to be 31.21%. Thus, variation of 4.79 +/- 5% was found. The report of the Senior Analyst, Quality Control Laboratory, Karnal is dated 5.11.1993. 3. On receipt of the report of the Senior Analyst, the petitioners through their dealer, in view of Section 24(3) of the Act, intimated to the Insecticide Inspector within the stipulated period of 28 days about their intention that the report of the Senior Analyst, Quality Control Laboratory, Karnal was not acceptable to them and they intended to get the sample re- analysed from the Central Insecticides Laboratory. In spite of the same, the Insecticide Inspector neither took any step to send the second sample to the Central Insecticides Laboratory for analysis or to file a complaint in the Court with promptitude. The expiry date of the insecticide in question, the sample of which was taken, was upto 31.3.1994. In spite of the same, the Insecticide Inspector neither took any step to send the second sample to the Central Insecticides Laboratory for analysis or to file a complaint in the Court with promptitude. The expiry date of the insecticide in question, the sample of which was taken, was upto 31.3.1994. The petitioners through their dealer in exercise of their right under Section 24(4) of the Act to have the sample re-analysed from the Central Insecticides Laboratory, made an application before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fatehabad, and on their request, vide order dated 28.3.1994, the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fatehabad sent the seized sample in question to the Central Insecticides Laboratory for re-analysis. It was further directed by the Court to send the report upto 30.4.1994. The sample which was sent for re-analysis was returned by the Scientific Officer, Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad with the report that the contents of the sample were leaking out badly and thus the same was found unfit for analysis. By that time, the shelf life of the sample had expired. Thereafter, there was hardly any time with the petitioners to make a request for sending another sample for re-analysis. Subsequently, on 26.4.1994, the Insecticides Inspector filed the complaint in question in the Court against the petitioners as well as the dealer under Section 29 of the Act and Rule made thereunder for violation of Section 3(k)(i) of the Act. 4. It has been averred in the petition that the dealer M/s. Shankar Lal Jai Parkash and his three partners filed Crl. Misc. No. 2500-M of 1995 before this Court for quashing of the complaint as well as the consequent proceedings against them on the ground that the dealer has exercised his right to send the second sample for re-analysis, and the second sample which was sent for re- analysis under the Court order was found to be unfit as the same could not be analysed due to leakage for which the complainant was responsible one. Therefore, the dealers right to have the second sample analysed was infringed. The said Crl. Misc. petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated 16.5.2002 and the complaint and the other consequential proceedings qua the dealer M/s. Shankar Lal Jai Parkash and his three partners were quashed. 5. The instant petition has been filed thereafter by the manufacturer company. 6. The said Crl. Misc. petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated 16.5.2002 and the complaint and the other consequential proceedings qua the dealer M/s. Shankar Lal Jai Parkash and his three partners were quashed. 5. The instant petition has been filed thereafter by the manufacturer company. 6. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. The factual position in this case is not disputed. Admittedly, the sample in question was taken from the business premises of the dealer M/s. Shankar Lal Jai Parkash on 18.9.1993 which was subsequently found to be misbranded vide report dated 26.11.1993. On 9.12.1993, the petitioner company through its dealer intimated to the Insecticide Inspector that the report of the Senior Analyst. Quality Control Laboratory, Karnal, was not acceptable to them and they intended to get the second sample re-analysed. When the Insecticide Inspector did not take any step to send the second sample for re- analysis, the petitioner company through its dealer applied to the Court under Section 24(4) of the Act for sending the second sample for re-analysis to the Central Insecticides Laboratory. The said application was allowed by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fatehabad vide order dated 28.3.1994. When the second sample was sent by the Insecticides Inspector, the same was found to be leaking and the Central Insecticides Laboratory returned the same while observing that the second sample sent for re-analysis was not fit for re- analysis as the same was leaking. By that time, the shelf life of the seized insecticide sample had expired on 31.3.1994. It is also not disputed that the similar petition filed by M/s. Shankar Lal Jai Parkash, dealer of the petitioner company, for quashing of the complaint in question has been allowed by this Court vide order dated 16.5.2002 on the ground that the right of the dealer to get the sample re-analysed has been infringed as the second sample which was sent for re-analysis was found to be unfit for re-analysis. 7. It is submitted that when the instant complaint was filed, the shelf life of the seized sample had already expired. In the instant case, the second sample sent as per directions of the Court to the Central Insecticides Laboratory, was returned with the remarks that the same was unfit for re- analysis on account of leaking of the same. 7. It is submitted that when the instant complaint was filed, the shelf life of the seized sample had already expired. In the instant case, the second sample sent as per directions of the Court to the Central Insecticides Laboratory, was returned with the remarks that the same was unfit for re- analysis on account of leaking of the same. Thereafter, no efforts were made by the Insecticide Inspector to send another sample to the Central Insecticides Laboratory for re-analysis and in the meanwhile the shelf life of the seized sample had expired. Section 24(4) of the Act provides a valuable right to the dealer or the manufacturer of the insecticide which was found to be misbranded to get it re-analysed from the Central Insecticides Laboratory. 8. In the instant case, after the intimation of the misbranding of the sample, an intimation was sent to the Insecticides Inspector that the report of the Senior Analyst, Quality Control Laboratory, Karnal was not acceptable and the dealer as well as the manufacturer had shown their intention to get the sample for re-analysis. In such situation, the dealer as well as the manufacturer has a legal right to get the sample re-analysed through the Court under Section 24(4) of the Act. In this case, the said right was also exercised and under the orders of the Court when the second sample was sent for re-analysis, the same was found to be unfit for analysis as the same was leaking. Subsequently, no effort was made by the Insecticide Inspector to provide another sample to the Laboratory, which was kept properly in a good condition. The net result is that the dealer or the manufacturer was not provided an effective opportunity to get the second sample re-analysed and due to this reason, this Court in Crl. Misc. No. 2500-M of 1995 quashed the complaint and the consequential proceedings qua the dealers. In my opinion, once the proceedings qua the dealers on this very ground have been quashed, no useful purpose will be served to continue with the proceedings qua the manufacturer. In view of this fact, the report of the Senior Analyst Quality Control Laboratory, Karnal, cannot be deemed to be conclusive evidence of misbranding in view of Section 24(4) of the Act. 9. In view of this fact, the report of the Senior Analyst Quality Control Laboratory, Karnal, cannot be deemed to be conclusive evidence of misbranding in view of Section 24(4) of the Act. 9. In M/s. Gupta Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and others v. State of Rajasthan and another, 2002(4) RCR(Crl.) 762, the Honble Supreme Court has held that Section 24 of the Act clearly provides that ordinarily in the absence of any material to the contrary, the report of the insecticides analyst will be accepted as final and conclusive of the material contained therewith. This is, however, subject to the right of the accused to have the sample examined by the Central Insecticides Laboratory provided he communicates his intention for the purpose within 28 days of the receipt of the copy of the report. It was further held that this right vested under the statute is valuable for the defence. If the accused had intimated the Insecticide Inspector their intention to have the sample tested in the Central Insecticides Laboratory within the prescribed limit of 28 days of the receipt of the copy of the State Analysts report, yet no step was taken by the Inspector either to send the sample to the Central Insecticides Laboratory or to file the complaint in the Court with promptitude so that the accused may move the Magistrate for appropriate order for the purpose. A serious prejudice is being caused to the accused and in such situation, no useful purpose will be served to continue with the criminal proceedings against the petitioners as the same will be futile exercise and abuse of the process of the Court. In the instant case, since the proceedings have already been quashed as far as the dealers are concerned, on the same grounds, in my opinion, the proceedings qua the manufacturer are also liable to be quashed as the liability of the manufacturer is through the dealer from whose premises the sample of the insecticide was drawn which was subsequently found to be misbranded. In view of the aforesaid, this petition is allowed and the complaint under Section 29 of the Act and Rule made thereunder for violation of Section 3(k)(i) of the Act, and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are quashed qua the petitioners.