The accused facing criminal prosecution under the Insecticides Act, 1968, has a valuable right to controvert the contents of the report of the Insecticide Analyst, by getting the sample re-analysed by the C. I. L.

R. P. SAXENA, J.

( 1 ) THESE petitions filed under Section 482, Cr. P. C. raise a common point of law and, as such, those are being decided by this common judgment.

( 2 ) IT will be conductive to detail out skeletal facts of each case. A. FACTS OF HINDUSTHAN CIBA GEIGY S CASE : (I) Petitioner No. 1 is a Public Limited Company, registered under the Companies Act. The petitioner No. 2 Mr. M. R. Lal was formerly working as Secretary of the Company, while petitioner No. 3 Mr. Ravi Bhatnagar is working as its Regional Manager. It is alleged that petitioner No. 4 Munq Hansar was working as Managing Director of the said Company till April, 1989 and that now he is abroad. Respondent No. 3-M/s. Shreeram Pesticides is the dealer of the petitioner Company at Hanumangarh, while respondent No. 4 is a partner of the dealer Company. (II) It appears that on 20-8-1990, Shri Murari Lal Sharma, Insecticides Inspector, Hanumangarh, took a sample of Insecticide Fencron (Fenavalerate 20% EC) of Batch No. 32, having date of manufacture September, 1989 and date of expiry 31-8-1991; for analysis from the shop of M/s. Shreeram Pesticides, Hanumangarh. The sealed sample thereof was sent to the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad, which was received there on 19-9-1990. The Junior Chemist of the said Laboratory on analysis found that the said samples Higher Active Ingredients contained 24. 5% instead of 20% as mentioned on the label and thus, the said sample did not conform to I. S. specifications of active ingredient requirement and was, therefore, misbranded. The Insecticides Inspector delivered a copy of the Analysis Report to the dealer company from whom the sample was taken. The Licensing Authority (Deputy Director, Agriculture (Tilhan), Hanumangarh Junction), vide his letter dated 15-12-90, issued a notice to the petitioner-Company, and the dealer Company, alleging that pursuant to damage caused to American cotton crop of one of the farmers, a sample of Fenavalerate 20% EC (Fencron), marketed by the petitioner-Company was drawn from M/s Shreeram Pesticides on 20-8-90; that a part thereof was sent for analysis to the CIL (Central Insecticides Laboratory) and that the same was found to contain more active ingredients than labelled and was, therefore, mis-branded. The petitioner-Company as well as the Dealer were directed to show cause as to why proceedings for cancellation of their registration and licence be not initiated under the provisions of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (in short, the Act) and the Insecticides Rules, 1971 (in short the Rules ). (III) The petitioner-Company in its reply dated 21-1-91, inter alia, asserted that the report of the Analyst was not correct and that the Rajasthan State has appointed State Analyst as per provisions of the Act and there was no reason why the sample should have been sent directly to the C. I. L. at Faridabad. It was also mentioned therein that the State Laboratorys result can be challenged or controverted by the person from whom the sample was drawn by requesting analysis of third sample taken by the Insecticides Inspector by C. I. L. and, as such, it was highly improper and illegal and to send the sample directly to the C. I. L. It appears that no further action was taken by the Insecticides Inspector, till 17-8-1991, when he sent the case to the Joint Director (Plant Protection), Rajasthan, Jaipur, who has been authorised by the State Government for grant of prosecution sanction. The said authority issued his written consent by his order dated 30-8-91 for launching prosecution under Section 29 (1) (a) of the Act against the petitioner-Company, dealer Company. In pursuance thereof ultimately on 4-10-1991, the Insecticides Inspector filed a criminal complaint in the court of learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh, against the petitioners and respondents Nos. 3 and 4 after the expiry of shelf-life of the insecticide of which sample was taken. The learned Magistrate took cognizance