Judgment :- 1. In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the petitioners/A.1 to A.4 seeks to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.758 of 2014 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool. 2. The factual matrix of the case is thus: The complainant is the Mandal Agricultural Officer, Atmakur, Kurnool District. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are partners of the firm--M/s New Rythu Fertilizers. A.3 is the Manufacturing Firm of Pesticides situated at Alwal District, Rajasthan. Whereas, the accused No.4 is the person responsible for Quality Control of Accused No.3 Firm. (a) On 06.08.2011 LW.1--Mandal Agricultural Officer & Insecticides Inspector, Atmakur, inspected the premises of Accused No.1 and 2 at Atmakur and served notice in Form No. XX to A.2 and collected four samples of each 250 ML of Monochrotophos 36% SL (Milphos) manufactured by Accused No.3 and sealed them and prepared Form XXI and sent the sealed sample--Monochrotophos 36% SL (Milphos) to the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Pesticide Testing and Coding Centre, Samiti Complex, Old Malakpet, Hyderabad, for analysis. After analysis, the Analyst sent a report stating that sample does not confirm the relevant specification in the active ingredient test conducted and hence, it is ‘MISBRANDED’. LW.1 served Analyst Report to A.2 on 30.08.2011 and obtained acknowledgment. LW.1 also seized the Invoice No.1131103617, dated 07.07.2011 of M/s New Rythu Fertilizers, Atmakur and 26 bottles each 250 ML and packed under the cover of panchanama. The Joint Director of Agriculture, Kurnool, sent proposals to the Collector and District Magistrate, Kurnool, along with the opinion of Assistant Public Prosecutor, Kurnool, to accord authorization to LW.1 to prosecute Accused Nos. 1 to 4 under the provisions of Insecticides Act, 1968 and authorization was given accordingly. Hence, the complaint under Section 29 (1) (a) read with Section 3 (K) (1) (VIII) of the Insecticides Act, 1968. 03. Aggrieved, the petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 4 filed the instant petition seeking quashment on the main plank of argument that the shelf life of pesticide i.e., Monochrotophos 36% SL (Milphos) was expired by 12.07.2012 and the LW.1 drew sample on 06.08.2011 and sent for analysis and Analyst Report was served on the petitioner/Accused No.2 on 30.08.2011. 03. Aggrieved, the petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 4 filed the instant petition seeking quashment on the main plank of argument that the shelf life of pesticide i.e., Monochrotophos 36% SL (Milphos) was expired by 12.07.2012 and the LW.1 drew sample on 06.08.2011 and sent for analysis and Analyst Report was served on the petitioner/Accused No.2 on 30.08.2011. Further, on 02.12.2011, a show cause notice dated 17.09.2011 was served on the petitioner/Accused No.3 by the Joint Director of Agriculture, Kurnool, to furnish the particulars of the persons responsible for manufacture of the said mis-branded product and petitioner/Accused No.3 vide Reply Letter dated 07.12.2011, informed that he was not satisfied with the result and wants to contest the contents of the Analytical Report. But inspite of it, the complainant even without mentioning about the said Reply Letter dated 07.12.2011, filed the complaint before the trial Court on 17.05.2014 which was returned on 19.06.2014 and represented on 28.06.2014 and ultimately the complaint was taken cognizance on 31.01.2014 and as such, long prior to the filing of the complaint and taking cognizance, the shelf life of the product was expired and so the petitioners/accused lost their valuable right of seeking to send another sample for analysis to Central Insecticides Laboratory (CIL) and hence, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners/Accused will amount to abuse of process of law and therefore may be quashed. They relied upon the following decisions: (1) NORTHERN MINERAL LIMITED v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER (2010) 7 SCC 726 ). (2) STATE OF HARYANA v. UNIQUE FARMAID (P) LIMITED AND OTHERS (1999) 8 SCC 190 ). 04. Per contra, while opposing Petition, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and argued that the petitioners/accused are entitled to seek for sending the second sample for analysis before the Court only and therefore, their right is not defeated and hence, the petition is not maintainable. 5. In the light of the above rival arguments, the point for determination is: “whether there are merits in this petition to allow? 6. POINT: A perusal of the record shows that Form XXI (vide Rule 34) of Insecticides Act, 1968, prepared by LW.1 would show that the sample product which was obtained from the premises of Accused Nos. 1 and 2 is Monochrotophos 36% SL (Milphos) and its manufacturing date is 12.01.2011 and expiry date is 12.07.2012. 6. POINT: A perusal of the record shows that Form XXI (vide Rule 34) of Insecticides Act, 1968, prepared by LW.1 would show that the sample product which was obtained from the premises of Accused Nos. 1 and 2 is Monochrotophos 36% SL (Milphos) and its manufacturing date is 12.01.2011 and expiry date is 12.07.2012. The Apex Court in NORTHERN MINERAL LIMITED (1 supra), has delineated the importance and relevance of mentioning the expiry of shelf life of the insecticides and pesticides. It observed in Para No.10 thus: “We find substance in the submission of Mr. Nehra and the decision relied on clearly supports his contention. The statue mandates disclosure of expiry date of the insecticide. The form prescribed for submission of the report by the Insecticide Analyst contains columns for the dates of the manufacture and expiry. Insecticides are substances specified in the Schedule to the Insecticides Act and from perusal thereof it is evident that many of the substances with passage of time may lose their identity if exposed or come into contact with other substance. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that shelf life of an insecticide shall have its bearing when it is tested or analysed in the laboratory”. 7. Be that it may, admittedly, the sample was drawn on 06.08.2011 and copy of Analyst Report was sent to Accused on 30.08.2011. Further, LW.1 sent a Notice dated 17.09.2011 on 02.12.2011 to the petitioner/Accused No.3 and he sent a Reply dated 07-12-2011 which was received by 09-12-2011. Copy of the said Reply Letter sent by the petitioner/accused No.3 is pertinent to mention here. The Reply Letter reads thus: “The Joint Director of Agriculture, 07-12-2011 Kurnool (AP) Sub: Your Show Cause Notice No.D4/4706/111, Dt. 17.09.2011 Dear sir, We are in receipt of show cause notice referred above on 02.12.2011 and thereby come to understand that one sample of Monocrotophos 36% Batch No.C00557 (Mfd.01/11 and expiry 7/12) drawn from M/s New Rythu Fert, Atmakur, Kurnool District, for analysis was found misbranded. In this respect, we want to submit as under for your kind consideration. 1. That the sample is marginally misbranded and we honestly feel it is for the reason of defective sampling or analysis. 2. We are not satisfied with the result and want to contest the contents of the analytical report. Please do the needful at your earliest. In this respect, we want to submit as under for your kind consideration. 1. That the sample is marginally misbranded and we honestly feel it is for the reason of defective sampling or analysis. 2. We are not satisfied with the result and want to contest the contents of the analytical report. Please do the needful at your earliest. Thanking you, For Insecticides (India) Limited, xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Authorized Signatory)” a) Thus, in the above said Reply Letter, the petitioner/Accused No.3 made it clear that he was not satisfied with the result of analysis and wants to contest the contents of the analytical report and requested the authorities to do the needful at the earliest. The Letter purports that petitioner/Accused No.3 wanted the authorities to send another sample for analysis. I n Northern Mineral Limited (1 supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that “ mere expression of intention to adduce evidence in contraversion of analyst report implies demand to send the samples to the C.I.L for second analysis and the accused need not specifically request for sending the report to C.I.L. The Hon’ble Apex Court held thus: “From the language and the underlying object behind Sections 24(3) and (4) of the Act as also from the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, we are of the opinion that mere notifying the intention to adduce evidence in controversion of the report of the Insecticide Analyst confers on the accused the right and clothes the Court with the jurisdiction to send the sample for analysis by the Central Insecticides Laboratory and an accused is not required to demand in specific terms that the sample be sent for analysis to the Central Insecticides Laboratory. In our opinion, the mere intention to adduce evidence in controversion of the report, implies demand to send the sample to the Central Insecticides Laboratory for test and analysis”. 8. So, from the Letter dated 07.12.2011 of petitioner/Accused No.3, it is clear that he was not satisfied with the analyst report and he wants to contest the contents of the same and thereby he was preferring to exercise his right under Section 24(3) and (4) of Insecticide Act, 1986. 8. So, from the Letter dated 07.12.2011 of petitioner/Accused No.3, it is clear that he was not satisfied with the analyst report and he wants to contest the contents of the same and thereby he was preferring to exercise his right under Section 24(3) and (4) of Insecticide Act, 1986. Section 24 of the said Act reads thus: “ Section 24: Report of Insecticide Analyst: (1) xxxx (2) xxxx (3) Any document purporting to be a report signed by an Insecticide Analyst shall be evidence of the facts stated therein, and such evidence shall be conclusive unless the person from whom the sample was taken has within twenty eight days of the receipt of a copy of the report notified in writing the Insecticide Inspector or the Court before which any proceedings in respect of the sample are pending that he intends to adduce evidence in controversion of the report “ (4) 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 Analyst’s 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, within a period of thirty days, 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” (5) Xxxx 09. However, inspite of knowing the clear intention of the petitioners/accused the complainant, it appears, did not take any action to send the second sample for analysis within shelf life of the product. On the other hand, he filed complaint on 17.05.2014 which was ultimately taken cognizance by the trial Court on 31.10.2014. Thus, by the time the complaint was taken cognizance, the shelf life of the product was expired long ago and thereby the valuable rights of the accused conferred under Section 24(3) and (4) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, were defeated for no fault of the petitioners/accused. Thus, by the time the complaint was taken cognizance, the shelf life of the product was expired long ago and thereby the valuable rights of the accused conferred under Section 24(3) and (4) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, were defeated for no fault of the petitioners/accused. In similar circumstances and in respect of a case relating to drawing the sample of Monochrotophos 36% SL (Milphos) and filing the complaint belatedly after expiry of the shelf life, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana (2 supra) held that the accused deserve quashment of the proceedings. it held thus: “It cannot be gainsaid, therefore, that the respondents in these appeals have been deprived of their valuable right to have the sample tested from the Central Insecticides Laboratory under sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Act. Under sub-section (3) of Section 24 report signed by the Insecticide Analyst shall be evidence of the facts stated therein and shall be conclusive evidence against the accused only if the accused do not, within 28 days of the receipt of the report, notify in writing to the Insecticide Inspector or the Court before which proceedings are pending that they intend to adduce evidence to controvert the report. In the present cases, the Insecticide Inspector was notified that the accused intended to adduce evidence to controvert the report. BY the time the matter reached the Court, the shelf life of the sample had already expired and no purpose would have been served informing the Court of such an intention. The report of the Insecticide Analyst was, therefore, not conclusive. A valuable right had been conferred on the accused to have the sample tested from the Central Insecticides Laboratory and in the circumstances of the case, the accused have been deprived of that right, thus, prejudicing them in their defence”. 10. The above decision squarely applies to the facts of the present case. In the instance case also, the petitioners/accused were deprived of their rights accrued under Section 24(3) and (4) of Insecticides Act, 1968 due to apathy of the complainant. Hence, continuation of proceedings, in the considered view of this Court, will amount to abuse of process of law. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the Proceedings in C.C.No.758 of 2014 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool, are hereby quashed against the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 4. Hence, continuation of proceedings, in the considered view of this Court, will amount to abuse of process of law. 11. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the Proceedings in C.C.No.758 of 2014 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool, are hereby quashed against the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 to 4. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.