ORDER

Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. In these appeals filed by the accused against the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court dated 1-5-2001, declining to interfere with the criminal proceeding instituted against the appellant in exercise of the power under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is under challenge.

4. The factual backdrop of the case which is relevant for appreciating the contentions raised may be stated thus:

M/s. Gupta Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. is engaged in manufacture of pesticides and insecticides including B.H.C. 10% dust, batch No. B/10-172 and phorates 10-G which are the materials in question in the present proceeding. On 31-10-1991, the insecticides inspector visited the shop of a dealer where these products were being sold. He collected samples of the materials for examination. In accordance with the procedure prescribed under Insecticides Act, 1968, the samples was divided into different parts of which one was given to the person from whom the sample was collected and another was sent to the state insecticides laboratory for analysis. It is relevant to state here that the expiry date of B.H.C. 10% dust, batch No. B/10-172 was September, 1993 and for phorates 10-G batch No. PG-86 the expiry date was February, 1993. The report submitted by the analyst was to the effect that the material did not conform to the prescribed standard and was, therefore, misbranded. The report was received by the inspector on 21-1-1992. The intimation of the receipt of the report was sent to the dealer on 10-1-1992 and to the appellants on 16-1-1992. On receipt of the intimation about the state analyst report the appellants sent intimation to the inspector expressing their intention to lead evidence against the report. The intimation was sent within the period prescribed under the Act. Long thereafter in July, 1992 the inspector took steps to obtain permission of the competent authority to launch criminal prosecution. Permission was granted 2 years thereafter in July 1994. The complaint was filed in court against the company and its managing director and directors, alleging commission of offence punishable under section 29(1)(a) of the Insecticides Act, 1968. By then the shelf-life of the insecticides in question had expired. Section 29 provides that whoever imports, manufactures, sells, stocks, or exhibits for sale, or distributes any insecticides deemed to be mis-branded under sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (iii) of section 3 (k), shall be punishable in the manner prescribed under the section.

5. The appellants filed the application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking quashing of the complaint and the criminal proceedings instituted against them, inter alia, on the ground that on account of the inordinate delay in filing the complaint, they have been deprived of their valuable right to get the samples of the seized material examined by the central insecticides laboratory. The High Court without entering into merit of the case declined to interfere with the proceedings relying on the general principle that the court should be loath to interfere with criminal proceeding at the inception and should not ordinarily quash a criminal complaint and proceedings.

6. Shri G.L. Sanghi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants contended that in the facts and circumstances of the cases, there is no doubt that the appellants have been deprived of the valuable right to get the sample examined at the central insecticide laboratory which is vested in them under section 24 sub-section (4) of the Act. He further contended that the appellants had sent intimation to the inspector that they were not accepting the state analysed report as correct and intend to have the sample examined at the central insecticides laboratory and that the finality and the conclusiveness attached under the statutes in respect of the state analysed report is not available to the prosecution. More than two years had