JUDGMENT M.M. Aggarwal, J. - This is petition for quashing of complaint under the Insecticides Act copy Annexure P-1 and summoning order Annexure P-2 and all consequential proceedings arising out of the complaint. 2. The facts of the case are that Balwinder Singh Insecticide Inspector had drawn a sample of Methyl Parathion from the office of M/s. Param Sales Corporation, VPO Bhalana, Opposite RCF, Sultanpur Lodhi Road, District Kapurthala. Three samples had been prepared and out of these one sample was sent for analysis and as per report of the Senior Analyst Insecticide Laboratory Ludhiana, it was not conforming to the specifications as the active ingredients in the sample were found to be 0.88% against 2% D.P. There was variation of 1.12%. Thereafter, after issuing notice, complaint was filed against the dealer and also against the manufacturer. Present petitioner was shown as Director of the Manufacturing Company. 3. Counsel for the petitioner argues that the complaint was filed on 9.9.2002 when the shell life of the sample was just going to expire as the articles had been manufactured in April, 2001 and its expiry date was September 2002. It was argued that the petitioner had been deprived of his right of getting the sample reanalyzed from Central Insecticide Laboratory. He relied on a judgment of this Court in M/s. Artee Minerals v. State of Punjab, 1997(4) RCR(Criminal) 621. Section 24(4) of the Act reads as under : "Unless the sample has already been tested or analysed in the Central Insecticides Laboratory, where a person has under sub-section (3) notified his intention of adducing evidence in controversion of the Insecticide Analysts report, the Court may, of its own motion or in its discretion at the request either of the complainant or of the accused, cause the sample of the insecticide produced before the Magistrate under sub-section (6) of Section 22 to be sent for test or analysis to the said laboratory, which shall make the test or analysis and report in writing signed by, or under the authority of, the Director of the Central Insecticides Laboratory the result thereof, and such report shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein." 4. A judgment of Honble Supreme Court had also been relied on as reported in State of Punjab v. National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd., 1998(4) RCR(Criminal) 579. 5. A judgment of Honble Supreme Court had also been relied on as reported in State of Punjab v. National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd., 1998(4) RCR(Criminal) 579. 5. In this case, as per complaint, notice had been issued to the dealer Param Sales Corporation by the Insecticide Inspector after the sample was found to be sub-standard but there was no averment that any notice was issued to the manufacturer. The complaint was filed on 9.9.2002 when the shelf life was just to expire. The manufacturer petitioner could avail of his right under Section 24(4) of the Act after they had notice from the Court, which could be only after the complaint will be filed in the Court. Under these circumstances, there is merit in the petition and the same is accepted. Complaint against the manufacturer petitioner shall stand quashed. Petition allowed.