JUDGMENT 1. - The aforesaid petition has been filed against the order dated 1.6.2000, in Cr.Case No. 261/2000, passed by Additional Cm f Judicial Magistrate Chhabra, District Baran, whereby cognizance has been'&ken against the petitioners for the offences under Section 29(1)(a) of Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short the Act') and against the order dated 7.8.2000 whereby the petitioners 1 and 2 have been added as accused. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a criminal case was filed against Bhupendra and the petitioner No. 3 for offence under Section 29(1)(a) of the Act, and cognizance was taken by the learned trial Court on 1.6.2002. Afterwards, on 7.8.2000, the application was filed by the prosecution, and cognizance has been taken against petitioners No. 1 and 2 also. 3. The main contention of the petitioners is that there is no evidence or averment in the initial complaint against the petitioners, as is clear from the Annexure-1. Initially cognizance was taken against some of the accused, thereafter no further evidence has been taken. As such the impugned order of cognizance against the petitioner Arvind and Nand Kishore is liable to be quashed, in view of the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. 4. Learned counsel further submitted that no notice under Section 24(4) of the Act, nor copy of the report of Analyst was given to petitioners No. 1 and 2, while it was obligatory for the prosecution to comply with the provisions of Section 24(4) of Act. As such valuable right of petitioners has been taken away, by not providing the copy of the report to the petitioners, and hence whole proceeding is vitiated. He placed reliance on M/s. Bharat Insecticides Limited v. State of Rajasthan, 1997 (1) Western Law Cases (Raj.) 657 , wherein this Court has held that copy of the report of analyst should be delivered to accused, and its failure would cause injustice to accused. 5. Learned counsel has also submitted that sanction for prosecution against petitioner No. 3 is not in accordance with law. Therefore the order of cognizance should be quashed. He placed reliance on Crop Health Products Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, 2005 (9) RDD 3464 (Raj.) , wherein this Court has held that when sanction does not contain the facts constituting offence nor grounds for satisfaction, it is not a valid sanction, therefore the cognizance should be quashed. 6. Therefore the order of cognizance should be quashed. He placed reliance on Crop Health Products Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, 2005 (9) RDD 3464 (Raj.) , wherein this Court has held that when sanction does not contain the facts constituting offence nor grounds for satisfaction, it is not a valid sanction, therefore the cognizance should be quashed. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the material available on record. 7. A bare perusal of the material available on record clearly shows that sanction has been given in mechanical manner without application of mind, it does not contain the facts constituting offence nor grounds for satisfaction. It also shows that it has been passed in mechanical manner on a printed proforma. Admittedly by not providing the copy of report of analyst the prosecution has deprived the petitioners from getting the sample tested from another laboratory. In view of legal position enumerated under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the cognizance qua petitioners No. 1 and 2 is bad in law. Therefore, the cognizance orders qua petitioners deserve to be quashed and set aside. 8. Consequently, the misc. petition succeeds. The impugned orders dated 1.6.2000 and 7.8.2000 in Cri. Case No. 261/2000, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Chhabra, District Baran, are hereby quashed and set aside qua petitioners.Petition allowed. *******