JUDGMENT : Mr. M.N. Bhandari, J. 1. This misc. application has been filed against the order dated 16.1.2015. Therein the finding about sending second sample has been recorded. 2. Learned counsel submits that the second sample was not sent for testing even on a request made by the petitioner. It is more so when the sample was not earlier tested or analysed in the Central Insecticides Laboratory. The judgment makes a reference of sending second sample for testing. 3. The factual position has not been denied by learned Public Prosecutor. It is, however, submitted that second sample for testing is sent only by the Court thus reply to the request in writing for sending the second sample was given to the petitioner. 4. The facts narrated above show that the second sample was not sent for testing, accordingly, order dated 16.1.2015 needs to be corrected/modified. It is, no doubt, true that the second sample has to be sent by the Court but factual error in the order dated 16.1.2015 needs to be corrected. It is more so when, it goes in the root of case and as a consequence to it, even the prosecution against the petitioner goes in view of violation of Section 24 of the Act of 1968. 5. Taking into consideration the violation of Section 24 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short “the Act of 1968”), the order dated 16.1.2015 needs to be corrected along with its outcome. In absence of compliance of Section 24 of the Act of 1968, the prosecution cannot be continued further against the petitioner and, in the result, not only the misc. application but the criminal misc. petition is allowed. The criminal proceedings against the petitioner are set aside. 6. Accordingly, the order dated 16.1.2015 is notified and in the result, misc. petition stands allowed. Order of 16.1.2015 notified and petition allowed.