JUDGMENT : PANKAJ BHANDARI, J. 1. Petitioners have preferred separate revision petitions aggrieved by order dated 18.02.2006 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Udaipurwati Rajasthan, whereby the learned Court below has framed charges against the petitioners for offence under Section 29(1)(a) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (herein after referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that there is no averment in the complaint that the Directors were responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. 3. It is contended that in the absence of specific averments to this effect, Court was not empowered to take cognizance against the Directors of the company. It is also contended that the report of Insecticide Analyst was not served upon M/s Northan Minerals Ltd. and its Director, as a result of which they could not get the sample analyzed by the Central Insecticide Laboratory. 4. It is also contended that an application moved before the Court below for sending the samples to Central Insecticide Laboratory but no order was passed thereon. It is contended that valuable right of the petitioners has been infringed. Non-supply of copy of the report of Insecticide Analyst to petitioners M/s Northern Minerals Ltd. and Its Director has deprived them of their rights to rebut the report, as per Sub-section 4 of Section 24 of the Act. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor contends that the sample of insecticide was found to be not confirming to the prescribed standard. 6. I have considered the contentions. 7. In brief, the facts of the case are that Insecticide Inspector took samples from M/s Shah Beej Bhandar on 20.04.1999, sent the same to the Insecticide Analyst and the same was found to be not as per the prescribed standard. Notice was issued to M/s Shah Beej Bhandar and copy of the report was also sent to M/s Shah Beej Bhandar. In the complaint, there is no allegation that R.G. Agarwal and A.K. Dhanuka who were Director of Northern Minerals Ltd. were responsible to the company for conduct of the business of the company. From the record, it is also revealed that a Quality Control Officer was appointed by Northern Minerals Ltd. the Directors cannot be thus held responsible for the sample not adhering to the prescribed standard. 8. From the record, it is also revealed that a Quality Control Officer was appointed by Northern Minerals Ltd. the Directors cannot be thus held responsible for the sample not adhering to the prescribed standard. 8. Contention of counsel for the petitioners that they have been deprived of their valuable rights of getting their samples examined. From Central Insecticide Laboratory do have force since the report of Insecticide Analyst is considered as conclusive proof unless the persons apply for getting the report from Central Insecticide Laboratory. The Insecticide Inspector failed to send the report of Insecticide Analyst to the manufacturer thus depriving the manufacture of his valuable right of examination by Central Insecticide Laboratory. 9. From perusal of the record, it is revealed that an application was moved before the concerned court and the Court also did not send the samples to the Central Insecticide Laboratory which has deprived the petitioners of their rights to rebut the report. 10. In view of the fact that there is no averment with regard to the Directors being responsible to the company also taking note of the fact that a Quality Control Officer was appointed by the company and petitioners have been deprived of their rights to get the samples examined by Central Insecticide Laboratory. The impugned order vide which cognizance has been taken cannot be sustained. 11. In the result, revision petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed. Order of accusation of charge qua-petitioners is quashed and set aside. Record of the Court below be returned forthwith. 12. A copy of this order be placed in connected file.