The court ruled that the limitation period for filing a complaint under the Insecticides Act begins from the date the Government Analyst's report is received, not from the sample collection date.

1. This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioners / A.4 and A.5 under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , (for short "CrPC") for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.569 of 2013 on the file of the Court of II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole for the offence under S.29(1)(a) read with S.3(K)(i) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), against them.

2. Heard Sri Avinash Desai, learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1 - State and Sri C. Subodh, learned counsel for nd the 2 respondent, apart from perusing the material available on record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that A.1 is the firm dealing with the pesticides business as a retail dealer under the name and style of "M/s. Agros Rythu Seva Kendram", Pamur, and A.2 is the Proprietor of A.1 firm carrying on business in the premises situated at D.No.2-212, Ranganayakulu Building, Nellore Road, Pamur. A.3 is the Company distributing the Insecticides under the name and style of "M/s. Biotech International Limited"; A.4 is the C.E.O of the A.3 Company responsible for the manufacture of A.3 firm and A.5 is the firm responsible for manufacturing misbranded pesticides under the name and style of "M/s. Biotech International Limited". The petitioners herein are the Accused Nos.4 and 5 in the above CC No.569 of 2013.
(ii) On 05.02.2010, L.W.1 - B. Sreenivasa Chakravarthy, who was working as Mandal Agriculture Officer at the time of the incident, inspected the premises of M/s. Agro Rythu Seva Kendram, situated at D.No.2-212, Ranganayakulu building, Pamur, Nellore Road and suspected the Insecticides to be misbranded and has drawn the pesticide sample i.e., Azadirachtin 1.1% EC, trade name - Neemarin. At the time of inspection, A.2, who is the Proprietor of the A.1 firm was present in the shop and carrying on the business of Insecticides. L.W.1 - Complainant served Form - XX duly filled under Rule - 33 of the Insecticides Rules, 1971 (for short "the Rules, 1971") to A.2 - Proprietor of A.1 Firm and obtained credit bill for the sample cost mentioned in Form - XX. He has drawn the samples of Azadirachtin 1.1%, (Neemarin trade name), 500 ml., four sealed bottles from out of 10 bottles of 500 ml., stock balance vide batch No.S/N100-012 with manufacturing date 08.10.2009 and expiry date 07.10.2010. All the four sample bottles were thoroughly observed by L.W.1 - B.Srinivasa Chakravarthy with regard to the batch number, manufacturing date, expiry date, name of the manufacturer etc., and affixed the paper seal sticker of the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, vide Serial No.12 / XX / 331 on all four bottles of the alleged sample of Azadirachtin 1.1% (Neemarin Trade name) and packed with wrapper paper duly inserted the Form No.XX and XXI and tied with thread and affixed personal seal and the sample was marked as BS / PMR / 09-10 / BP1. After completion of the process, L.W.1 - B.Srinivasa Chakravarthy sent the laboratory sample to the Deputy Director of Agriculture ( IA ), Pesticides Testing Laboratory, Coding Centre, SAMETI, Hyderabad, for testing as per Rule - 34 of the Rules, 1971. One sample marked as a dealer sample was given to A.2, who is the rd Proprietor of A - 1 firm. The 3 sample which was marked as a referee sample was handed over to L.W.2 - Joint Director of Agriculture, Ongole, for safe custody. The fourth sample marked to the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture was sent to the Assistant Director of Agriculture (PTL), Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, and the sample procedure was covered unde