- (1.) - Petitioner No. 2 is a firm of which petitioner No. 1 is the Chief Executive. The petitioner No. 2 Manufactures insecticides. Non-petitioner No. 2 is a dealer in insecticides while No. 3 and 4 are its partners. The Prosecution under the Insecticides Act was launched against the petitioners as well as the non-petitioners No. 2 to 4 and this petition has been moved by the petitioners to quash the proceedings against them. The main ground of which this petition has been moved is that the petitioner's to get the sample analysed has been taken away and when this valuable right goes away then the prosecution cannot proceed.
(2.) ON 10. 4. 1984 two samples of insecticides were purchased from the dealer by Insecticides Inspector and sent for analysis. The sample was found to be not according to Specifications. A copy of this reports was sent to the dealer. Thereafter, prosecution was launched only in the year 1985. According to earned counsel for the petitioner the date of manufacture of the insecticide samples was July, 1984 and the date of expiry was June, 1080 and when the petitioners were served in 1987 the date had already expired and the sample was not fit for analysis. The petitioners were actually served only in July 1987 much after the institution of the complaint, The report of the analysis was sent to the dealer only and the manufacturer had no knowledge about the report or the prosecution of the purchase of samples. Section 24 (3) of the insecticides Act would be applicable to the dealer to whom the report shoe-id have been sent. In 1991 R. C. C. 254 (1) it has been held that if the date of expiry of the sample had already passed before the accused was summoned and the sample could not be re-analysed then the right of the accused to apply to get it analysed is denied and in these circumstances the procedings against the manufacture were quashed to prevent the abuse of the process of court. The other cases 1981 Criminal Law Journal 764 (2) and A. I. R. 1967 Supreme Court 970 (3) have been relied upon in this decision. In the present circumstances it is obvious that the petitioner has been deprived of the right to get the samples re-analysed and in such circumstances to allow the trial of the petitioner to proceed would amount to abuse of the process of court and the proceedings against these petitioners deserve to be dismissed. Accordingly this petitioner is accepted and proceedings against them are quahsed , .;