R.S. Chauhan, J.-The petitioners have challenged the continuation of proceedings in Criminal Case No. 219/1995 “State vs. M/s Tikayat Kishan Vikas Kendra”, pending in the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sardarsahar for offence under Section 29(1)(a) of the Insecticide Act (henceforth to be referred to as “the Act” for short).

2. According to the petitioners, on 011.1994 an Insecticide Inspector inspected the shop of M/s Tikayat Kishan Vikas Kendra. He took samples of mithail parathiozen after observing all the formalities laid down by the Act. The said samples were sent for analysis and the same was found to be “misbranded” according to the report dated 212.1994. Vide letter dated 30.12.1994, the firm was informed about the misbranding of the sample. Immediately, the firm sent a letter wherein they claimed that the said insecticide was brought from M/s. Tropical Agro Systems (India) Ltd., Madras On 04.01.1995, the Insecticide Inspector also sent an information to the manufacturer M/s Tropical Agro Systems (India) Ltd., Vide letter dated 10.02.1995, the said manufacturer (petitioner No. 5) replied to the Insecticide Inspector. They clearly stated that the sample could not be misbranded as they have their own laboratory where strict quality control is maintained by them. They also requested that the sample may be sent to the Central Laboratory for re-examination and testing. Interestingly, the said insecticide was to expire in May, 1995 and yet despite the clear cut request of the petitioner No. 5 for sending the sample to the Central Laboratory, no action was taken by the Insecticide Inspector. Subsequently, on 28.07.1995 i.e., after the shelf life of the insecticide had expired, the complaint was filed by the Inspector before the Court of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate for offence under Section 29(1)(a) of the Act.

3. Mr. Niranjan Singh, the Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the Act provides for the appointment of the Insecticide Inspectors and also provides an elaborate procedure to be followed by them for taking the samples and for sending the samples for testing to the Laboratories established under the Act. According to Mr. Singh, since the shelf life of an insecticide is limited, therefore, it is incumbent on the Inspector to send the sample and to file the complaint on the shortest time. He has further argued that since the alleged accused can request the Court to send the sample for further re-examiantion, therefore, it is imperative that the complaint be filed prior to the insecticide loosing its shelf life. Lastly, he has contended that in case the necessary steps are not completed within a short period then the accused is deprived of a valid defence in such. In such an eventuality the entire trial stands vitiated. Thus, according to him, in the instant case the continuation of the criminal proceeding would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court and of the law. Hence, the criminal proceeding deserves to be quashed and set aside.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has contended that the accused has ample opportunity during the course of the trial to lead evidence to show that the insecticide was not misbranded. Therefore, at a premature stage the criminal proceeding should not be quashed.

5. Having heard the counsels, we are convinced that the contentions raised by the Counsel for the petitioners deserves to be accepted.

6. In April, 1958 may persons died and other fell ill in Kerala and Madras as a result of food-poisoning arising from contamination of food with a poisonous insecticide. The large scale food poisoning prompted the Government of India to constitute Food Poisoning Cases Enquiry Commission under the chairmanship of Justice J.C. Shah. The recommendations of the Enquiry Commission were accepted by the Government. The Government also appointed an Inter-Ministerial Committee which recommended certain short term and long term measures. In 1962, tragedy agai