The manufacturer's right to get the sample re-tested under Sections 24(3) and 24(4) of the Insecticide Act, 1968, is a valuable right. If the manufacturer is deprived of this right, the proceedings against him are liable to be quashed.

R.S.Mongia, J.

1. This petition has been filed by M/s. Raj Hans Chemicals, Sohna Road, Faridabad, for quashing the complaint, dated 1st April, 1991 filed by Insecticide Inspector, Bhatinda, in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mansa, alleging the commission of an offence by the petitioner under Sections 17 and 33 of the Insecticide Act, 1968 (hereinafter called the Act). Brief facts giving rise to the present petition may be noticed :-

2. Insecticide Inspector, Bhatinda, inspected the premises of M/s. Bharat Beej Bhandar, Sardulgarh, District Bhatinda, on 24th August, 1990 and he took sample of Dimethoate 30% EC of Batch No. RC-02, which was manufactured by the petitioner. The sample was sent for analysis to the State Insecticide testing Laboratory, Ludhiana on 27th August, 1990. The report was received from the Laboratory on 24th October, 1990 to the effect that the sample of Insecticide was not found as per the specification of I.S.I. mark and the same was found misbranded and the same was 18.22% instead of 30%. After getting the sanction from the Joint Director, Agriculture, as required under the Act, on 6th March, 1991, a complaint was filed by the Inspector on 1st April, 1991 in the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mansa, against the proprietor of M/s. Bharat Beej Bhandar, Sardulgarh and the petitioner who was the manufacturer of the insecticide, for the alleged commission of offence by the dealer under Sections 3K and 18 and against the manufacturer (petitioner) under Sections 17 and 33 of the Act. The Court summoned the petitioner as well as the dealer for 18th May, 1991.

3. It may be observed here that prior to the filing of the complaint, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 26th October, 1990, by the Chief Agriculture Officer, Bhatinda to show cause as to why action against him be not taken under Clauses 3K, 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Act. The petitioner wrote back on 12th November, 1990, that the case against it was totally false and challenged the test report and requested to send the second sample for re-testing from Central Insecticide Laboratory under Section 24(3) of the Act. Another fact which needs highlighting is that the shelf-life of the insecticide mentioned on the container was upto April, 1991.

4. The petitioners counsel argued that on the date when the petitioner was required to appear before the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 18th May, 1991, the shelf-life of the insecticide had already expired and the petitioner was deprived of the right of getting the sample re-tested from the Central Insecticide Laboratory, which right is envisaged by Section 24(4) of the Act. Further, he submitted that the petitioner had also exercised his right under Section 24(3) of the Act and had asked the Chief Agricultural Officer within 28 days of the receipt of the show cause notice to get the sample re-tested from the Central Insecticide Laboratory, but the same was not re-tested. According to the learned counsel, once such a right is denied, as envisaged by Sections 24(3) and 24(4) of the Act, the proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on (1) National Organic Chemicals Industries Ltd. v. State of Haryana ; (2) Bhai Manjit Singh v. the State of Punjab, and (3) Bhai Manjit Singh v. State of Punjab and others, 1992(1) Recent C.R. 137, 244 and 552 respectively, which are judgments of different Honble Judges of this Court. The petitioners counsel also argued that the sanction for prosecution granted by the Joint Director, Agriculture, was wholly mechanical and without any application of mind and was no sanction in the eye of law and any prosecution based thereon was liable to be quashed.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the petitioner could have asked for re-testing the sample when show cause notice along with the report was served upon him. He also submitted that in fact the right