The court emphasized the importance of a valid analysis, direct implication of the accused, and the supply of the report of the Analyst to the accused in prosecutions under the Insecticides Act, 1968.

Ashutosh Mohunta, J.

1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, relates to quashment of complaint under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of Insecticides Act, 1968 , read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971 dated June 6, 1994 (Annexure P1), the summoning order dated April 7, 1995 (Annexure P2) passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that Mr. Kulvinder Singh, Insecticides Inspector, Batala, inspected the premises of respondent No. 2 on June 14, 1993 and took three samples of Anilofos 30% EC. The samples were manufactured by M/s Kisan Chemicals, of which the petitioner is the Assistant Manager. The batch number of the samples was 34 while the manufacturing and the expiry date were February 1993 and January 1995, respectively. After conducting usual formalities, one sample was given to respondent No. 2 and the other two samples were deposited in the office of Chief Agricultural Officer, Gurdaspur. One sample was sent to the Senior Analyst, Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana on June 21, 1993. As per test report dated August 11, 1993, the sample was not upto the required specifications as it contained 27.88% active ingredient instead of 30%. In rest of the tests, the sample satisfied the requirements of ISI specifications.

3. A show-cause notice dated August 30, 1993 (Annexure P5) was issued to M/s Kisan Chemicals, Chandigarh by the Chief Agricultural Officer, Gurdaspur, along with the report of the Analyst dated August 11, 1993 (Annexure P6). Vide letter dated September 27, 1993, M/s Kisan Chemicals filed reply to the show cause notice. It was stated that on receipt of the notice, they had analysed the control sample of their product, which the Analyst had found to be complying with the prescribed standard requirements. A copy of the analysis so conducted is at Annexure P8. The Chief Agricultural Officer considered the reply and vide his letter dated March 4, 1994 informed M/s Kisan Chemicals that the reply was found to be unsatisfactory. A copy of the letter is at Annexure P11.

4. It has also been mentioned that two samples of the same product and of the same batch number were taken by Sardar Balvinder Singh, Insecticides Inspector, Sangrur. On analysis, the same were found to be of the prescribed standard.

5. After obtaining sanction to prosecute from the Joint Director (Agriculture), Chandigarh, vide letter dated April 4, 1994, the complainant filed a complaint dated June 6, 1994 (Annexure P1) against M/s Ghuman Pesticide, Batala (respondent No. 2) and M/s Kisan Chemicals, Chandigarh through Mr. V.M. Vashishat and Mr. Vineet Bhushan (petitioner). On the basis of the complaint, the petitioner has been summoned vide order dated April 7, 1995 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur (Annexure P2).

6. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the shelf life of the sample had already expired when the petitioner was summoned on April 7, 1995. Thus, the petitioner has been deprived of his right to get the second sample re-analysed and an opportunity to controvert the correctness of the report of the Analyst, has not been granted to him. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the two samples of the same products and of the same batch, which were taken by Sardar Balvinder Singh, Insecticides Inspector, Sangrur, were found to be conforming to the I.S.I. specifications. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the analysis got conducted by the complainant was defective.

8. I find force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. A look at Annexure P3 and P4 would show that the samples of Anilofos 30% EC of the same batch were got analysed from Senior Analyst, Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Ludhiana, on August 6, 1993. The Senior Analyst opined that the said samples "c