O R D E R Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By this Criminal Petition, the order of the trial Court as well as of the Sessions Court has been challenged. 3. The petitioner is accused in a case registered under the provisions of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short ‘the Act’). He submits that a sample was collected by the complainant on 30-09-2002. On 10-12-2002, the complainant received a report from the Regional Pesticides Testing Laboratory, Kanpur, and according to this report, the sample was misbranded. A show cause notice was issued on 20-01-2003, which was received by the petitioner on 28-01-2003. On 03-02-2003, a reply was given by the petitioner to the show cause notice. This reply was received by the complainant on 10-02-2003. On 18-02-2003, the complainant advised the petitioner to approach the Hon’ble Judicial First Class Magistrate, Yellandu, and on 19-02-2003, a demand draft was submitted by the petitioner for re-analysis. These facts are not in dispute. 4. The only question which is in dispute is whether the petitioner availed the opportunity provided under Section 24(3) of the Act. Section 24(3) lays down as under: ‘3. Reexamination of sample:Reexamination of sample can be directed by Court either suo motu or on application of accused. Where second sample analysis was requested for but it was not sent for reanalysis, proceedings quashed. Where first test of sample was done, but complaint filed after expiry of life of insecticide, it would result in debarring accused of his valuable right to have reanalysis. Where shelf life expired and second analysis could not be done complaint quashed. Where the shelf life of the sample expired by the time criminal complaint was filed in the Court, the valuable right of the petitioner was lost and he could not get the second sample analysed from Central Insecticides Laboratory and hence Criminal Complaint and subsequent proceedings are liable to be quashed. Valuable right of reanalysis lost Accused are prejudiced. The right of the accused to have the sample reanalyzed from C.I. Laboratory is a valuable right and if the petitioner is deprived of such valuable right it is fatal to the complaint and it is liable to be quashed. 5. Valuable right of reanalysis lost Accused are prejudiced. The right of the accused to have the sample reanalyzed from C.I. Laboratory is a valuable right and if the petitioner is deprived of such valuable right it is fatal to the complaint and it is liable to be quashed. 5. From bare perusal of this provision, it appears that the legislature wanted that the report of the insecticide analyst shall be treated to be conclusive unless and until the report is disputed by the person from whom the said sample was taken. In case he disputes the correctness of the report, he has to notify in writing his intention either to the inspector or to the Court concerned within 28 days of the receipt of the copy of the report, that he intends to adduce evidence to controvert the report of the public analyst and that this was done within 28 days of receipt of the report. But surprisingly, neither the trial Court nor the Sessions Court has referred to the letter dated 03-02-2003, which reads as under: ‘We refer to your letter number E4/213/2003 dated January 20, 2003 received by us on January 28, 2003. The above letter is with regard to the sample of Acetamiprid 20% (PRIDE) declared misbranded by Regional Pesticides and Fertiliser, Gandhinagar, Singareni was of batch number QG13688210 manufacturing dated July 2002 expiring in July 2004. The Analyst on analysis of the sample found the active ingredient at 18.44% against the normal value of 20%. We submit that the permissible limit of the active ingredient content is 19% (minus 5% of normal value) the deficiency thus being 0.56%. In this connection we wish to inform you that the retained sample of the said batch was analysed at our laboratory (a Government approved laboratory) approval number TU/IVRD/1930/2002, the analysis of which indicates, the sample as per specification. A copy of the said analysis report and the chromatogram is attached herewith for your perusal. However, we request you to produce the referee sample held by you to court and intimate to us the name and address of the said court to enable us to file our application before the court for sending the referee sample for reanalysis at the Central Insecticides Laboratory, to adduce evidence in contravention of the report of Regional Pesticides Testing Laboratory, Kanpur. We request you to kindly wait for the report of the Central Insecticides Laboratory before proceeding further in the matter.’ 6. Both the Courts below came to the conclusion that the request in terms of sub-section 3 of Section 24 was made beyond 28 days, by taking the date on which the demand draft was furnished to the Court as the date of objection to the report of the analyst. Obviously, both the Courts were in error in coming to such conclusions. As stated hereinabove, in order to challenge the report of the analyst all that has to be said by the petitioner is that he intends to adduce evidence in contravention of the report. Sending another sample to the Central Insecticide Laboratory is the job of the Court under sub-section 4 of Section 24 of the Act. The petitioner may or may not request for sending the report to the Central Insecticide Laborarory, but, if the report is challenged under sub-section 2 by either of the parties, it will be for the Court concerned to exercise powers under Section 24(4) of the Act to send the report. Besides this, the party can also make an application for sending the sample for testing to the Central Insecticides Laboratory. For these reasons, both the orders passed by the Courts below cannot sustain, and, are set aside. However, the learned Magistrate is directed to send the additional sample at the instance of the petitioner to the Central Insecticides Laboratory. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the shelf life of the sample has ended on 12-07-2004, therefore, it may not be fit for analysis now. The learned Magistrate shall inform the Central Laboratory about this aspect also and get a report to the effect whether the sample was fit for analysis or not. 7. With these observations, the Criminal Petition is disposed of. No costs. --X—