1. The petition is filed by accused Nos. 2 and 3 of R.C.C. No. 479/2015, presently pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Parbhani for quashing and setting aside the proceeding. The proceeding is filed by Insecticide Inspector, a public servant for the offences punishable under sections 3 (k) (i), 17 (1) (a), 18 (1) (c) and 18 (2) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) and the process is issued for these offences. Both the sides are heard.

2. The learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the petitioners are claiming relief on following two grounds:-

(i) The manufacturing company is not made accused, and

(ii) Due to expiry of shelf life period of sample, the petitioners cannot get third sample tested.

3. The contents of the complaint show that the Insecticide Inspector from Parbhani, who has filed the complaint, visited the shop of accused No. 1 Shri. Dhole, who runs proprietary concern M/s. Sri Adarsha Farm Services at New Mondha, Parbhani. Accused No. 1 is a dealer of insecticides and he sells the insecticides supplied by accused No. 2. Accused No. 2, present petitioner No. 1 Jayant Nag, is Zonal Sales Manager of M/s. Indofil Industries Limited of Akola, Maharashtra State. Accused No. 3 Uday Gite, present petitioner No. 2, is Deputy Manager, Quality Control of this industries (Expert in manufacturer process) and it is contended that as such he is also responsible for manufacturing insecticide.

4. The visit was paid by Insecticide Inspector to the shop of accused No. 1 on 27.5.2014 and he collected three packed container of below mentioned insecticide. Sr. No. Name of Insecticide Batch No. Mnf. Date Expiry dt. 1 QUINALPHOS (25% EC) Mfg. by Indofil Industries Ltd. Gut No.382, at post Urawande Tq. Mulsi Dist. Pune - 412101 (Maharashtra) Packing size - 25 Ml WFL-129 05/07/13 05/06/15 The three identical containers of insecticides were duly packed and sealed with sealing wax by the Inspector and one sealed sample was handed over to accused No. 1. The second sample of insecticide was sent to Insecticide Analyst, Pune by the Inspector and the third sample was retained for court purpose.

5. The report of Insecticide Analyst, Pune was received and it was to the effect that the sample drawn failed to conform to relevant BIS specification in A.I. content test and so, it was misbranded. This report was received from Pune State Laboratory on 19.6.2014. After that show cause notice was issued to accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 along with State Analyst's report on 11.7.2014. This notice was answered by accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3, but the authority felt that the answer was not satisfactory. Then Indofil company by letter dated 16.7.2014 requested to send another sample to Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad. The reanalysis report from Central Laboratory was received on 7.1.2015. This report also showed that the sample did not conform to the relevant specifications and hence, it was mis-branded. As the sample was mis-branded under section 3 (k) (i) of the Act and as the manufacture and import of such insecticide is prohibited under the provision of section 17 of the Act and also the sale of such insecticide is prohibited under the provision of section 18 of the Act, the Insecticide Inspector after following the procedure and after collecting the consent as provided in section 31 (1) of the Act, filed the complaint.

6. The contents of the complaint show that one sample was kept with accused No. 1, the vendor from whom the samples were collected and the company was allowed to exercise the right for getting another sample tested by sending another sample to Central Laboratory. As there is report of Central laboratory, there is no room to dispute that the sample was mis-branded under the aforesaid provision.

7. To deal with the aforesaid grounds, this Court has carefully gone through the scheme of the Act. For dealing with the second ground, the provision of section 22 of the Act needs