The right to re-analysis of a sample under Section 24 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, is a valuable right of the accused, and any inaction or omission on the part of the department in violating this right is fatal to the prosecution.

1. Herein, the prayer is for quashing the complaint dated 2-2-1995 (Ann. P.2), under Sections 3(k)(1), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticide Rules, 1971, as well as all the consequent proceedings arising thereof, now pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar.

2. The petitioner-firm is selling and distributing insecticides/pesticides under a licence duly issued by the Chief Agricultural Officer, Amritsar, and Shri Amrik singh is its sole proprietor. On 15-2-1994, Shri Swinder Singh, Insecticide Inspector in the presence of Amrik Singh, the Agricultural Development Officer, Amritsar, visited the premises of the petitioner-firm and drew 3 samples of Monocrotophos 36% SL (brand name Monosul 36%) bearing batch No. 338, date of manufacturing July, 1993 and date of expiry December, 1994, manufactured by M/s. Sulphur Mills Pvt. Ltd., T. V. Estate SK Ahir Marg, Worli, Bombay. One sealed sample was handed over to Shri Vijay Kumar Dogra, Accountant against a valid receipt. One sealed sample together with memorandum in form XII was sent to the Senior Analyst, Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Amritsar, for analysis whereas third part of the test sample was kept in the office. The Analyst, vide his report found the sample as misbranded as it did not conform to ISI specifications as it contained 30.55% active ingredient against the granted percentage of 36% SL and on that basis the complaint dated 2-2-1995 (Ann. P.2) was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, against the petitioners-manufacturer and others. It is alleged by the petitioner that a detailed reply dated 16-5-1994 (Ann. P. 1) was given to the Chief Agricultural Officer, in response to the show cause notice dated 26-4-1994, wherein it was specifically mentioned that the petitioner was not satisfied with the report of the Testing Laboratory and re-quested for sending the sample for reanalysis to the Central Insecticide Laboratory. However, without sending the sample for re-analysis to the Central Insecticide Laboratory as provided under Section 24(4) of the Act the complaint was filed. It is further alleged that the petitioner has been deprived of its valuable right under the Act for getting the sample re-analysed from the Central Insecticide Laboratory due to the negligence on the part of the complainant-respondent as the complaint was filed after the expiry of shelf life of the sample.

3. On receipt of the notice, the respondent-State filed reply in the form of affidavit of Swinder Singh, Insecticide Inspector, wherein factual position with regard to the taking of samples and issuance of show cause notice and receipt of reply thereto has not been disputed. However, it was pleaded that the Chief Agricultural Officer, Amritsar, intimated the petitioner vide letter No. 9401, dated 19-7-94 (Ann. R. 1) that according to Section 24(4) of the Act the right to get order for re-analysis is vested with the Court of law and the petitioner should approach the Court for that purpose.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

5. Shri Ravinder Chopra, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the sample of the insecticide in question was taken on 15-2-1994, the manufacturing date of which was July, 1993 and the expiry date was December, 1994. He has further submitted that in response to the show cause notice dated 26-4-1994, a proper reply dated 16-5-1994 (Ann.P.1) was sent and it was made clear that the petitioner was not satisfied with the report of the Testing Laboratory and requested the Chief Agricultural Officer, Amritsar for sending the counterpart of the sample for re-analysis to the Central Insecticide Laboratory. He has further submitted that the counterpart sample was not sent as prayed for, and the complainant filed the complaint (Ann. P.2), dated 2-2-1995, i.e. much after the expiry of the shel