JUDGMENT : 1. The instant miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 22.8.2006 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sojat City whereby he has upheld the order dated 7.3.2002 passed by Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat in Cr. Original Case No. 66/1986 dismissing the application under section 258 Cr.P.C. 2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the Insecticide Inspector, Sojat during inspection collected a sample of insecticide Aldrin 30% EC manufactured by petitioner no. 1 M/s. Gupta Chemicals Private Ltd. from its vendor M/s. Ambika Khad Vikreta Sojat for analysis. The insecticide was manufactured in November, 1984. The expiry date of the insecticide was October, 1986. Upon analysis of the insecticide being conducted, the State Pesticide Testing Laboratory by its report dated 6.2.1985 opined that the sample did not conform to standards. Copy of the analysis report was supplied to the vendor i.e. Ambika Khad Vikreta, Sojat. The sanction for prosecution was granted on 30.5.1985 and ultimately a complaint for the offences under the Insecticides Act against the accused including the manufacturing company and vendor etc. was filed in the Court on 22.1.1986. The Court proceeded to take cognizance against the petitioners and the other co-accused on the very same day. In pursuance to the summons issued by the Court, the petitioners appeared in the Court for the first occasion and filed an application on 23.10.1986 for sending the second sample of the insecticide to the Central Insecticide Laboratory (CIL) for re-analysis. The second sample of the insecticide was forwarded to the C.I.L. The analysis report of the second sample after analysis conducted by the C.I.L. on 24.3.1987 was received with the opinion that as the sample was containing 35.46 % insecticide content. Thus, the same was substandard. 3. The petitioners herein filed an application under Section 258 Cr.P.C. in the court below for dropping of the proceedings initiated against them. The learned Magistrate by the order dated 7.3.2002 rejected the prayer and the Revisional Court by the order dated 22.8.2006 has affirmed the said order. Now, the petitioner's have approached this Court by way of instant miscellaneous petition assailing the order rejecting the application filed by them in the trial court under Section 258 Cr.P.C. and for quashing of all the subsequent proceedings sought to be taken against the petitioners in the trial court. 4. Now, the petitioner's have approached this Court by way of instant miscellaneous petition assailing the order rejecting the application filed by them in the trial court under Section 258 Cr.P.C. and for quashing of all the subsequent proceedings sought to be taken against the petitioners in the trial court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per Section 24 of the Insecticide Act, all the accused including the Company against whom proceedings are proposed under the Act have a right of re-analysis of the second sample of the insecticide through the Central Insecticide Laboratory. He submitted that the right of re-analysis of the second sample of insecticide is an extension of the fundamental right of the accused to defend themselves. Learned counsel submitted that in this case, the petitioner company was given no information about the sample being substandard as the copy of the report of the State Pesticides Laboratory was not supplied to it and thus, the proceedings of the complaint are liable to be quashed. He placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Single Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Bharat Insecticides Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, reported in RLR 1996 (1) 349 and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Northern Minerals Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in 2010 Cr.LR (SC) 729 in support of his arguments. He submitted that as the copy of the State Pesticide Laboratory's report was not supplied to the petitioner company, it was deprived of its right to challenge the said report timely by having the same sent to the Central Insecticides Laboratory. 5. Learned counsel submitted that despite this hurdle, the petitioners immediately on appearing in the trial Court in pursuance to the summons issued by the court, moved an application under Section 24(4) of the Act for having the second sample analysed through C.I.L. The sample was sent to the C.I.L. but the analysis thereof was conducted after the expiry of shelf life of the sample. Learned counsel submitted that in this view of the matter, the petitioners' right to challenge the report of the State Pesticide Laboratory by having the second sample analysed through the C.I.L. has been frustrated and thus the petitioners were deprived of the right to defend themselves. Learned counsel submitted that in this view of the matter, the petitioners' right to challenge the report of the State Pesticide Laboratory by having the second sample analysed through the C.I.L. has been frustrated and thus the petitioners were deprived of the right to defend themselves. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed that the miscellaneous petition deserves to be accepted and the proceedings of the complaint going on in the court below deserve to be quashed qua the petitioners. 6. Reply to the petition has been filed on behalf of the Respondent Insecticides Inspector (the complainant). In the said reply, the averment of the counsel for the petitioner that the copy of the report of the State Pesticide Laboratory was not sent to the petitioner under section 24 of the Act has not been disputed. Learned P.P. appearing for the State submitted that as per Section 24 of the Act, only the vendor or the person from whom the sample is taken is entitled to be informed about the report of the State Pesticide Laboratory. He contended that under the said provision of law, the manufacturer has no right to be informed about the report of the analysis conducted by the State Labotratory. He, therefore, submitted that the learned Magistrate committed no error in refusing to drop the proceedings against the petitioner and the Revisional Court has rightly affirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate. 7. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar. Perused the record. From a perusal of the record, it is apparent that the fact regarding the petitioner company not having been informed about the report submitted by the State Pesticide Laboratory after analysis of the insecticide sample is not in dispute. Admittedly, the information in this regard was only given to the vendor. The vendor did not choose to challenge the report of the public analyst. After filing of the complaint, on 20.1.1986, the petitioner company was issued summons. The summons were served on the petitioner company for the first time for the date of 23.10.1986 and that is when, for the first time, the company came to be informed about the insecticide manufactured by it being substandard as per the report of the State Pesticide Laboratory. An application under Section 24(3) of the Act was moved on behalf of the company on 25.10.1986 for sending the second sample to the C.I.L. for reanalysis. An application under Section 24(3) of the Act was moved on behalf of the company on 25.10.1986 for sending the second sample to the C.I.L. for reanalysis. By that time the sample was fast approaching the expiry of its shelf life. Be that as it may. The Court forwarded the sample to the C.I.L. for analysis but the analysis of the sample could only be conducted after the expiry of the shelf life of the insecticide. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court had the occasion to interpret the provisions of the Insecticides Act in the case of State of Haryana v. Unique Farmaid Pvt. Ltd. and Northern Mineral Ltd. v. Union of India referred supra. The Apex Court held as under:- "The decisions of this Court in the cases of National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. (Supra), Unique Farmaid (P) Ltd. & Ors. (Supra) and M/s. Gupta Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), in our opinion do support Mr. Nehra's contention. True it is that in first two cases, the accused, besides sending intimation that they intend to adduce evidence in controversion of the report accused persons have specifically demanded for sending the sample for anlaysis by the Central Insecticides Laboratory. However, the ratio of the decision does not rest on this fact. While laying down the law, this Court only took into consideration that accused had intimated its intention to adduce evidence in controversion of the report and that conferred him the right to get sample tested by Central Insecticides Laboratory. The decision of this Court in the case of M/s Gupta Chemicals (supra) is very close to the facts of the present case. In the said case "on receipt of the information about the State Analyst report the appellants sent intimation to the Inspector expressing their intention to lead evidence against the report" and this intimation was read to mean "their intention to have the sample tested in the Central Insecticides Laboratory". In the said case "on receipt of the information about the State Analyst report the appellants sent intimation to the Inspector expressing their intention to lead evidence against the report" and this intimation was read to mean "their intention to have the sample tested in the Central Insecticides Laboratory". From the language and the underlying object behind Section 24(3) and (4) of the Act as also from the ratio of the decisions aforesaid of this Court, we are of the opinion that mere notifying intention to adduce evidence in controversion of the report of the Insecticide Analyst confers on the accused the right and clothes the court jurisdiction to send the sample for analysis by the Central Insecticides Laboratory and an accused is not required to demand in specific terms that sample be sent for analysis to Central Insecticides Laboratory. In our opinion the mere intention to adduce evidence in controversion of the report, implies demand to send the sample to Central Insecticides Laboratory for test and analysis. 13. Section 24(3) of the Act gives right to the accused to rebut the conclusive nature of the evidence of Insecticide Analyst by notifying its intention to adduce evidence in controversion of the report before the Insecticide Inspector or before Court where proceeding in respect of the samples is pending. Further the Court has been given power to send the sample for analysis and test by the Central Insecticides Laboratory of its own motion or at the request of the complainant or the accused. No proceeding was pending before any Court, when the accused was served with Insecticide Analyst report, the intention was necessarily required to be conveyed to the Insecticide Inspector, which was so done by the appellant and in this background Insecticide Inspector was obliged to institute complaint forthwith and produce sample and request the court to send the sample for analysis and test to the Central Insecticides Laboratory. Appellant did whatever was possible for it. Its right has been defeated by not sending the sample for analysis and report to Central Insecticides Laboratory. It may be mentioned herein that shelf life of the insecticides had expired even prior to the filing of the complaint. Appellant did whatever was possible for it. Its right has been defeated by not sending the sample for analysis and report to Central Insecticides Laboratory. It may be mentioned herein that shelf life of the insecticides had expired even prior to the filing of the complaint. The position therefore which emerges is that by sheer inaction the shelf life of the sample of insecticides had expired and for that reason no step was possible to be taken for its test and analysis by Central Insecticides Laboratory. Valuable right of the appellant having been defeated, we are of the opinion that allowing this criminal prosecution against the appellant to continue shall be futile and abuse of the process of Court. 9. The controversy raised by the learned P.P. that the copy of the report of the State Insecticides Analysis was required to be supplied only to the vendor or the person from whom the sample was taken has been set at rest by this Court in the case of M/s. Bharat Insecticides Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Raj. (supra) wherein this very objection of the State was repelled and the Hon'ble Court held as below:- "14. On a deep and careful consideration to the purpose and intendment of Section 24 and the scheme of the Act, I am of the view that this section should receive the interpretation to lay down the following guide-lines:- (a) On receipt of Insecticide's Analyst's report, the Insecticide Inspector shall deliver one copy of the report to the person from whom the sample is taken, In case the sample if found substandard or misbranded and the Inspector intends to launch prosecution against other persons also, then a copy of the said report should be made available to all the accused against whom the report is sought to be used in order to give them an opportunity to challenge the correctness or authenticity of the report within the specified time as provided in sub-Section (3). (b) The right to challenge Analyst's report within 28 days of the receipt of a copy of such report as provided in sub-section (3) should be available to all the accused against whom; the report is sought to be used in the criminal prosecution. (b) The right to challenge Analyst's report within 28 days of the receipt of a copy of such report as provided in sub-section (3) should be available to all the accused against whom; the report is sought to be used in the criminal prosecution. (c) If the correctness of Analyst's report is challenged by the person from whom the sample was taken or any other accused within the prescribed period, the Insecticide Inspector is bound to send the second part of the sample/container, which was restored to the person from whom the sample was taken to the CIL for re-testing or re-analysing. If this interpretation is not taken, the very purpose of giving one part of the sample to the person from whom it was taken shall be meaningless. Further, the opening words of sub-section (4) "Unless the sample has already been tested or analysed in the Central Insecticides Laboratory" indicate that the second sample can be got analysed or tested in the CIL without intervention of the Court. (d) In case the second sample is sent for re-testing or re-analysing in the CIL as aforesaid, the report of the CIL shall be conclusive and there would be no further right to any accused to get the third sample produced in the Court to be analysed or re-tested in the CIL. (e) In case, the second sample is not analysed or re-tested as aforesaid for any reason, including that criminal proceedings in respect of the sample are pending in the Court, the third sample may be sent for analysing or re-testing by the Court on its own motion or at the request either of the complainant or of the accused, as the case may be. (f) After receipt of a copy of Analyst's report if the same is not challenged by any of the accused within the prescribed period, it would be conclusive under Section 24(3) of the Act and it would not be open to be challenged by them in the criminal proceedings which are pending or initiated against them. In that situation, it would not be open for them to say that they have been deprived of their right to get the sample re-tested for re-analysed in the CIL. In that situation, it would not be open for them to say that they have been deprived of their right to get the sample re-tested for re-analysed in the CIL. In case, the Analyst's report was not made available to other accused before launching prosecution against them, they should have a right to get a report from the CIL by making request to the court concerned to get the third sample produced in court re-tested or re-analysed. (g) In case the second part of the sample is not sent to the CIL for re-test or re-analysis inspite of the notification expressing intention to adduce evidence in contravention of the report made within 28 days and the prosecution is launched after inordinate delay i.e. after expiry of self-life period of the insecticide, then it would be fatal to the prosecution as it would deprive the accused of their valuable right to get the sample tested or analysed in the CIL. 15. The above interpretation to Section 24 would be harmonious and in consonance to the principles of natural justice. Applying the aforesaid guidelines in the instant case, it transpires that the Company-M/s. Bharat Insecticides Ltd. and its Directors, who are accused in the case, were not delivered a copy of Insecticide Analyst's report, even then in his reply dated 11.11.93 to the show cause notice dated 27.10.93 of the Insecticide Inspector the Manager (Quality Control) of the Company had requested the Insecticide Inspector to get the second sample of the insecticide re-tested in the CIL, but no steps were taken by him in this direction. The complaint in the case was filed in court on 18.10.94 i.e. after the expiry of self-life period of the Insecticide. The cognizance was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 18.10.94 and process was issued on the same day, with the result the Company and its Directors had no occasion to make a request to the Court to get another sample tested in the CIL and as such, they have been deprived of their valuable right under sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Act. The argument of the learned Public Prosecutor that even after the expiry of self-life period of the Insecticide, another sample could have been sent to the CIL for analysis can not be accepted. The argument of the learned Public Prosecutor that even after the expiry of self-life period of the Insecticide, another sample could have been sent to the CIL for analysis can not be accepted. It is not disputed that pesticide in the instant case was effective for a maxium period of one year from the date of its manufacture. It was effective upto April 1994 while the complaint itself was filed on 18th October, 1994." 10. In the case in hand, due to by the sheer inaction and delay on the part of the prosecution agency in informing the petitioner company about the report of the State Pesticide Laboratory, the matter was delayed to a great extent and by the time the petitioners appeared in the Court and filed the application for sending the second sample for analysis to C.I.L., the expiry date of sample had virtually arrived. Ultimately the analysis could be carried out by the C.I.L. only after the expiry of sample's shelf life. Thus, the valuable right available to the accused for challenging the report of the State Pesticide Laboratory by getting the sample reanalysed by the C.I.L. was defeated and frustrated because of the sheer inaction of the prosecuting agency. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court and by this Court in the aforesaid two cases, the prosecution of the accused petitioners in this case is nothing but a gross abuse of the process of the Court. 12. Resultantly, the miscellaneous petition is allowed. The proceedings of the Criminal Case No. 66/1986 going on in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sojat are hereby quashed qua the petitioner. The proceedings shall continue against the remaining accused. 13. Record be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith.Petition Allowed.