ORDER

Leave granted.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This appeal by special leave arises against the order of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh made on March 13, 1992 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 6835-M(A) of 1991.

3. The admitted position is that the respondent is a manufacturer of Monocil, an Insecticide. Insecticide Inspector visited the factory of the respondent on August 18, 1988 and had taken two samples of Monocil from batch No. 0319, manufactured in March, 1988 when the same was exposed for sale in August, 1989. Admittedly, he had taken two samples thereof and sent one of the samples to the Public Analyst. The Public Analyst in his report dated October 12, 1988 reported that the ingredients used were 33.02% E.C. as against the specification of 36%. Accordingly, it was not in conformity with the ISI specifications. Consequently, he opined that it was adulterated. On receipt thereof, show cause notice was issued on October 21, 1988 as to why the respondent should not be proceeded against for sale of an adulterated insecticide. On receipt thereof, the respondent had given a reply on November 7, 1988 requesting the appellant to send the second sample to-Central Insecticides Laboratory so as to enable them "to adduce evidence in controversion of the allegations made against us you may please have the retained/refer sample analysed by CIL", that was not done. The complaint was laid on March 25, 1989 for prosecution of the respondent in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala. The respondent challenged the same in the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the impugned order, the High Court has held that the appellant had delayed in taking action; nor was the sample in the custody of the appellant sent to the Central Insecticides Laboratory; the appellant had deprived the respondent of its valuable defence due to delay. Under these circumstances, the proceedings for prosecution of the respondent is a waste of public time; accordingly, it quashed the proceedings. Though, prima facie, we are not impressed with the reasoning given by the High Court, on perusal and conjoint reading of Sections 21, 22 and 24 of the Act, we are of the view that ultimate conclusion to quash the complaint, in the circumstances, is right. The substance of the question is: whether the appellant has complied with the statutory requirements envisaged under Section 22 read with Section 24(3) and (4) of the Act? Section 21 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short, the Act ) gives power to the Insecticide Inspector to enter and search, at all reasonable times and with such assistance, if any, as he considers necessary, any premises in which he has reason to believe that an offence under the Act or the rules made thereunder has been or is being or is about to be committed, for the purpose of satisfying himself that the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder or the conditions of any certificate of registration or licence issued thereunder are being complied with etc. etc. He shall have power to enter and search the premises and take action, as contemplated under the Act including to take samples of any insecticides and send such samples for analysis to the Insecticide Analyst for its test in the prescribed manner. The procedure has been prescribed under Section 22 of the Act. The manner in which Insecticide Inspector is empowered to seize the record etc. and also to send such analysis to the Analyst is provided therein. Sub-section (5) & (6) provide the manner in which the samples of an insecticide for the purpose of test or analysis, shall be taken; it reads as under :

"(5) where an Insecticide Inspector takes a sample of an insecticide for the purpose of test or analysis, he shall intimate such purpose in writing in the prescribed form to the person from whom he takes it and, in the presence of such person unless he willfully absents himself, shall divide the sample into t