ORDER
Rajendra Saxena, J.
1. These petitions filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. raise a common point of law and, as such, those are being decided by this common judgment.
2. It will be conductive to detail out skeletal facts of each case.
A. FACTS OF HINDUSTHAN CIBA GEIGY'S CASE:
(i) Petitioner No. 1 is a Public Limited Company, registered under the Companies Act. The petitioner No. 2 Mr. M.R. Lal was formerly working as Secretary of the Company, while petitioner No. 3 Mr. Ravi Bhatnagar is working as its Regional Manager. It is alleged that petitioner No. 4 Munq Hansar was working as Managing Director of the said Company till April, 1989 and that now he is aborad. Respondent No. 3 -- M/s. Shreeram Pesticides is the dealer of the petitioner Company at Hanumangarh, while respondent No. 4 is a partner of the dealer Company.
(ii) It appears that on 20-8-1990, Shri Murari Lai Sharma, Insecticides Inspector, Hanumangarh, took a sample of Insecticide Fencron (Fenavalerate 20% EC) of Batch No. 32, having date of manufacture September, 1989 and date of expiry 31-8-1991; for analysis from the shop of M/s. Shreeram Pesticides, Hanumangarh. The sealed sample thereof was sent to the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad, which was received there on 19-9-1990. The Junior Chemist of the said Laboratory on analysis found that the said sample's Higher Active Ingredients contained 24.5% instead of 20% as mentioned on the label and thus, the said sample did not conform to I.S. specifications of active ingredient requirement and was, therefore, misbranded. The Insecticides Inspector delivered a copy of the Analysis Report to the dealer company from whom the sample was taken. The Licensing Authority (Deputy Director, Agriculture (Tilhan), Hanumangarh Junction), vide his letter dated 15-12-90, issued a notice to the petitioner-Company, and the dealer Company, alleging that pursuant to damage caused to American cotton crop of one of the farmers, a sample of Fenavalerate 20% EC (Fencron), marketed by the petitioner-Company was drawn from M/s Shreeram Pesticides on 20-8-90; that a part thereof was sent for analysis to the CIL (Central Insecticides Laboratory) and that the same was found to contain more active ingredients than labelled and was, therefore, mis-branded. The petitioner-Company as well as the Dealer were directed to show cause as to why proceedings for cancellation of their registration and licence be not initiated under the provisions of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (in short, 'the Act') and the Insecticides Rules, 1971 (in short 'the Rules').
(iii) The petitioner-Company in its reply dated 21-1-91, inter alia, asserted that the report of the Analyst was not correct and that the Rajasthan State has appointed State Analyst as per provisions of the Act and there was no reason why the sample should have been sent directly to the C.I.L. at Faridabad. It was also mentioned therein that the State Laboratory's result can be challenged or controverted by the person from whom the sample was drawn by requesting analysis of third sample taken by the Insecticides Inspector by C.I.L. and, as such, it was highly improper and illegal and to send the sample directly to the C.I.L. It appears that no further action was taken by the Insecticides Inspector, till 17-8-1991, when he sent the case to the Joint Director (Plant Protection), Rajasthan, Jaipur, who has been authorised by the State Government for grant of prosecution sanction. The said authority issued his written consent by his order dated 30-8-91 for launching prosecution under Section 29(1)(a) of the Act against the petitioner-Company, dealer Company. In pursuance thereof ultimately on 4-10-1991, the Insecticides Inspector filed a criminal complaint in the court of learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh, against the petitioners and respondents Nos. 3 and 4 after the expiry of shelf-life of the insecticide of which sample was taken. The learned Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons to the petitioners and respondents Nos. 3 and 4 to appear before him on 30-9-1992.
(iv) The petitioners contend that due to filing of criminal complaint after the expiry of shelf-life of the product, they have been deprived of their valuable right to get that sample re-analysed by the C.I.L. and that due to delay in filing of the prosecution, the right conferred on the accused under Section 24(4) of the Act has become illusory and meaningless. They have further contended that the consent under Section 31 of the Act was also bad and illegal, since no particulars regarding the produce, the report of the Analyst or findings of the Analyst, have been mentioned therein. The petitioners, therefore, assert that the proceedings drawn against them tantamount to abuse of the process of the court and prayed that those be quashed.
B. FACTS OF INDOPHIL CHEMICAL'S CASE:
(i) The petitioner-Indophil Chemicals Company, is a Division of M/s Modipon Limited, which is a public limited Company, registered under the Companies Act. The said Company manufactures among other products of pesticides, the pesticide known as Mancozeb 75% having trade name DITHANE-M 45 and sells its products throughout India. The petitioners Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 are legal Manager, Sales Manager, Regional Sales Manager and Branch Executive respectively of the said Company.
(ii) It appears that on 27-11 -1990, a sample of Mancozeb 75% (DITHANE M 45) from Batch No. 90-04-010, manufactured in April, 1990 having date of expiry of shelf-life March, 1992, was taken from the dealer M/s Rathi Pesticides and Fertilizers, Mathania (non-petitioner No. 3) by the Insecticide Inspector, Jodhpur for the purposes of analysis under Section 22 of the Act. One of the sealed sample was sent to the Insecticide Analyst, Regional Pesticides Testing Laboratory, Chandigarh (in short RPTL). The Senior Technical Assistant, RPTL, Chandigarh, received the sample on 3-12-90 and completed analysis on 10-1-91 and by his letter dated Nil reported that the said sample did not conform to the active ingredient test requirements and, as such, it was mis-branded, as it contain less active ingredient viz. 68.41% instead of 75% WP. The Insecticides Inspector by his letter dated 4-2-91, sent a copy of the analysis report to the dealer M/s Rathi Pesticides and Fertilizers, Mathania and directed it to show cause as to why criminal complaint be not filed against it under the Act and the Rules. A copy of the letter was also endorsed to the petitioner-Indofil Chemicals Company and M/s Atoz India, Jodhpur (Distributors) to show cause as to why criminal complaint be also not filed against them. However, no report of the Insecticides Analyst was supplied to them. Respondent No. 3 by its letter dated 15-2-91, informed that they did not agree with the Analysis Report, asserted that they reserved their right of getting the sample re-analysed under Section 24(4) of the Act and requested that the third sample be sent for re-analysis to the C.I.L. The petitioner-Company by its letter dated 19th February, 91, informed that they were not aware of the drawing of the sample, that they also did not know as to which sample, from which batch number was taken or whether the sample was manufactured by the petitioner Company or not and claimed that the said Analysis Report was not the conclusive evidence against them and that they did not accept the same as correct. The petitioner-Company also asserted that since there is a testing laboratory in the State of Rajasthan and Insecticide Analyst has also been appointed by the State Government, therefore, it was not permissible to the Insecticide Inspector to have sent the sample to any part of the Country as per his choice.
(ii) It further appears that the said Insecticide Inspector did not take any further action in the matter till 20-4-92, when he sent the case to the Joint Director, Agriculture (Plant Protection), Rajasthan, Jaipur, for grant of prosecution sanction. The said authority by its office order dated 6-5-92, gave written consent on behalf of the State Government for instituting the criminal complaint under Section 29(1)(a) of the Act, against the dealers (non-petitioners Nos. 3 and 4), the distributors (non-petitioners No. 5 and 6) and the manufacturers (petitioners Nos. 1 to 4). In pursuance thereof, the Insecticide Inspector filed the criminal complaint on 25-5-92 against the petitioners and non-petitioners No. 3 to 6 before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur City, who took cognizance and issued summons to the petitioners. It is alleged that summons was served on the petitioner-Company on 27-1 -94. The petitioners contend that the criminal complaint was filed against them after expiry of shelf-life of the product. Therefore, they have been deprived of an important and valuable right to get the sample re-analysed by the C.I.L. under Section 24(4) of the Act and that the Insecticide Inspector was also not authorised to send the sample to the C.I.L in the first instance and pray that the criminal proceedings initiated against them be quashed.
3. No reply has been filed on behalf of the State Government or the Insecticide Inspector in both the petitions despite ample opportunity.
4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor at length and perused the relevant record.
5. Shri V.P. Vashi has vehemently contended that due to delay in filing the prosecution after expiry of the shelf-life of the product, the petitioners have been deprived of an important and valuable right to get the sample re-analysed in the C.I.L. to controvert the correctness of the report of the Insecticide Analyst because the Insecticide Inspectors instead of sending the samples for analysis to the Insecticide Analyst, unauthorisedly sent the same to the Central Insecticide Laboratory directly. According to him, this denial of the valuable right was on account of deliberate conduct of the Insecticide Inspectors, contravening the provisions of the Act and the Rules, and as a result of which the petitioners have been seriously prejudiced in their defence and that to allow the proceedings in these cases any further will amount to abuse of the process of the court. He has asserted that the undue delay in launching the prosecution has not been explained at all and that for want of sufficient, compliance of Section 31(1) of the Act, there is no valid sanction for prosecution against the petitioners.
6. Shri S.M. Singhvi, learned Public Prosecutor has claimed that the Insecticide Inspectors were legally competent and empowered to send the samples to the Central Insecticide Laboratory in the first instance and that it was not necessary for them to have sent the samples to the Insecticide Analyst of the State Laboratory. According to him, since samples have already been tested/ analysed in the C.I.L., neither the dealer nor the manufacturer of the product has any right to get it re-analysed in the C.I.L. and as such, the provisions of Section 24(4) do not come into play. He has argued that neither there is any provision under Section 24 of the Act to deliver one copy of the report of the Insecticide Analyst to the manufacturer nor the latter has any right to get the same re-analysed in the C.I.L.
7. The learned Counsel for other respondents have reiterated the reasons given on behalf of the petitioners.
8. I have bestowed my most anxious and careful consideration to rival submissions made at the Bar.
9. Now a brief resume of the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. Section 16 of the Act lays down that the Central Govt. may, by notification in the official gazette, establish a Central Insecticides Laboratory under the control of a Director to be appointed by the Central Government to carry out the functions entrusted to it by or under the Act. Provided that the Central Government so directs by a notification in the official gazette, the functions of the Central Insecticides Laboratory shall, to such extent as may be specified in the notification, be carried out at any such institution as may be specified therein and thereupon the functions of the Director of the Central Insecticides Laboratory shall to the extent so specified be exercised by the head of that institution.
10. Section 19 deals with the Insecticide Analyst. It provides that the Central Government or a State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, appoint persons in such number as it thinks fit and possessing such technical and other qualifications as may be prescribed to be Insecticide Analysts for such areas and in respect of such insecticides or class of insecticides as may be specified in this notification.
11. The Rajasthan State Government by its notification No. F4(24) Agri/Gr II/A/75 dated 2nd February, 1981, S.O. No. 149, which was published in Rajasthan Gazette, Extraordinary, Part IV-C(ii), dated 2-2-81, at page 223, in exercise of powers conferred upon it under Section 19 of the Act and the Rules, declared the Assistant Agriculture Chemist (Quality Control), Durgapura, Jaipur, as Analyst for analysis of Insecticides samples in the Quality Control Insecticides Laboratory, Jaipur and authorised him to send result and resort for that purpose. Thus, in the State of Rajasthan, the Quality Control Insecticide Laboratory, Durgapura, Jaipur has been established and the Analyst thereof has been empowered for the analysis of insecticide samples.
12. Section 21 of the Act describes powers of the Insecticide Inspector. Clause (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 21 proclaims that the Insecticide Inspector shall have power to take samples, of any insecticide and send such sample for analysis to the Insecticide Analyst for test in the prescribed manner. Rule 27 of the Rules enumerates the duties of the Insecticide Inspector and empowers him to procure and send for test to the Analyst the sample of insecticide which he has reasons to suspect are being sold, stocked or accepted for sale in contravention to the provisions of the Act or Rules made thereunder. Rule 28 deals with the duties of the Inspector specially authorised to inspect manufacture of insecticides and lays down that it shall be the duty of a Inspector authorised to inspect the manufacture of insecticide to draw samples of insecticides manufactured from the premises and send them for test or analysis in accordance with the Rules. Rule 34 requires that the samples for test or analysis under the Act shall be sent by registered post or by hand, in a sealed packet with memorandum in Form XIII, with an outer cover addressed to the Insecticide Analyst.
13. Section 22 of the Act deals with the procedure to be followed by the Insecticide Inspector and Sub-section (6) thereof requires that after taking the sample of insecticide for the purpose of test or analysis, the Insecticide Inspector shall restore one portion of a sample so divided or one container, as the case may be, with the person from whom he has taken the sample and shall retain the remainder and dispose the same as follows:
(i) One portion or container, he shall forthwith send to the Insecticide Analyst for test or analysis; and
(ii) the second, he shall produce to the court before which proceedings, if any, are instituted in respect of the insecticide;
14. Therefore, it is clear that as soon as the Insecticide Inspector takes a sample of insecticide for the purpose of test or analysis, he shall divide the same in three portions and if container of the insecticide is of small volume, he shall take three such containers. Thereafter, he shall restore one portion of the sample/container to the person from whom sample has been taken; one portion or container shall be immediately sent by him to the Insecticide Analyst for test or analysis and that, in case Insecticide Analyst reports that the sample does not conform to the prescribed standards or is mis-branded and if after obtaining written consent of the State Government or the competent authority a criminal complaint is filed, then the third portion/container of the sample shall be produced to the Court before which the proceedings are instituted in respect of such insecticide.
15. Section 24 of the Act deals with the report of the Insecticide Analyst. It will be profitable to reproduce the same:
24. Report of Insecticide Analyst--(1) The Insecticide Analyst to whom a sample of any insecticide has been submitted for test or analysis under Sub-section (6) of Section 22, shall, within a period of sixty days, deliver to the Insecticide Inspector submitting it a signed report in duplicate in the prescribed form.
(2) The Insecticide Inspector on receipt thereof shall deliver one copy of the report to the person from whom the sample was taken and shall retain the other copy for use in any prosecution in respect of the sample.
(3) Any document purporting to be a report signed by an Insecticide Analyst shall be evidence of the facts stated therein, and such evidence shall be conclusive unless the person from whom the sample was taken has within twenty-eight days of the receipt of a copy of the report notified in writing the Insecticide Inspector or the court before which any proceedings in respect of the sample are pending that he intends to 'adduce evidence in contravention of the report.
(4) Unless the sample has already been tested or analysed in the Central Insecticide Laboratory, where a person has under Sub-section (3) notified his intention of adducing evidence in contraversion of the Insecticide Analyst's report, the court may, of its own motion or in its discretion at the request either of the complainant or of the accused, cause the sample of the insecticide produced before the Magistrate under Sub-section (6) of Section 22 to be sent for test or analysis to the said laboratory, which shall make the test or analysis and report in writing signed by, or under the authority of, the Director of the Central Insecticides Laboratory the result thereof, and such report shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein.
(5) The cost of a test or analysis made by the Central Insecticides Laboratory under Sub-section (4) shall be paid by the complainant or the accused, as the court shall direct.
16. Section 24 of the Act, therefore, lays down that the Insecticide Analyst to whom a sample of the insecticide has been submitted for test or analysis, under Sub-section (6) of Section 22, is required to deliver his report within a period of 60 days to the Insecticide Inspector, in duplicate in the prescribed form. The Insecticide Inspector shall, thereafter deliver one copy of the report to the person from whom the sample was taken and shall retain the other copy for use in any prosecution in respect of that sample. The report of the Insecticide Analyst shall be evidence of the facts stated therein and such evidence shall be conclusive, unless from whom the sample was taken, has within 28 days of the receipt of the copy of the report notifies in writing to the Insecticide Inspector or the court before which any proceedings in respect of the sample are pending that he intends to adduce evidence in contraversion of the report. The report of the Insecticide Analyst can be challenged or controverted by sending the second sample for test or analysis to the C.I.L. by the court, either of its own motion or in its discretion at the request either of the complainant or of the accused for test or analysis to the said Laboratory there, which shall make test or analysis and report in writing signed by, or under the authority of the Director, C.I.L., the result thereof and such report shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein.
17. Hence, it is abundantly apparent that the second sample taken for test or analysis can be sent by the court either of its own motion or in its discretion at the request of either of the complainant or the accused to the C.I.L. The work 'accused' used in Sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Act is wide and comprehensive and includes the dealer from whom the sample was taken, or the manufacturer or any other person arrayed as accused in the criminal complaint. Therefore, right of getting the sample reanalysed by the C.I.L. has not only been given to the person from whom the sample has been taken but to other persons also, who have been arrayed as accused in the criminal complaint or to the complainant. Thus, the accused facing criminal prosecution under the Act has a valuable right to controvert the contents of the report of the Insecticide Analyst, by getting the sample re-analysed by the C.I.L.
18. A close and careful perusal of Sections 21
and 22 of the Act and Rules 27 and 28 of the Rules also reflect in most unambiguous, clear and cogent terms that the Insecticide Inspector is duty bound to send the sample of the Insecticide for test or analysis to the Insecticide Analyst only and that he is not authorised or empowered to sent the sample for test or analysis, directly to the C.I.L. because, as per the provisions of Section 24(4) of the Act, the power of sending the second portion of the sample for reanalysis to the C.I.L. is given to the court where the criminal proceedings are pending. If the sample is directly sent by the Insecticide Inspector and got analysed from the C.I.L., then positively the accused persons facing prosecution under the provisions of the Act shall be deprived of their valuable right to controvert the analysis report by getting the other sample tested or re-analysed from the C.I.L. As mentioned earlier, the State of Rajasthan has already declared the Assistant Agricultural Chemist (Quality Control), Durgapura, Jaipur, as Insecticide Analyst under Section 19 of the Act. Therefore, in such circumstances, the Insecticide Inspector was duty bound to have sent the sample for test or analysis to the said Insecticide Analyst in the State Insecticide Laboratory at Durgapura, Jaipur. If the Insecticide Inspector sends the sample of the Insecticide for test or analysis directly to the C.I.L., it will negate, frustrate and defeat the very purpose of Section 24(4) of the Act, which confers an important and valuable right to the accused to get the sample re-tested or re-analysed in the C.I.L. because the accused shall not get any opportunity for controverting the contents of the analysis report.
19. In United Pesticides v. State of Punjab, (1992) 1 Rec Cri R 678 (Punj & Har), the sample of the insecticide was directly sent to the Central Insecticides Laboratory and not to the Insecticide Analyst. The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that it deprived the accused of his valuable right to controvert the Analyst report by getting the second sample tested from the C.I.L. and that the accused was deprived of the defence and the criminal complaint was quashed invoking inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C.
20. In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram, AIR 1967 SC 970: (1967 Cri LJ 939), a criminal complaint was filed under Section 7/16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, after inordinate delay and by that time the sample became decomposed and was not fit for re-analysis. It was held that under Sections 13(2) and 13(5) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, the accused has a right to get the sample examined by the Director, Central Food Laboratory and that due to inordinate delay in prosecution and the sample becoming decomposed and unfit for analysis, the accused was deprived of his valuable right for getting the same examined by the Director of Central Food Laboratory and hence the conviction against the accused was set aside.
21. In Bayer India Limited v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Criminal Petition No. 780/90, the Analyst-report was served on the petitioners (manufacturers) on 22-6-1986, much earlier to filing of the criminal complaint but the criminal complaint was filed on 17-2-1989, long after the lapse of shelf life of the insecticide. It was held that petitioners were not in a position to file a petition for sending the second portion of the sample to the C.I.L. due to late launching of the prosecution against them after expiry of shelf life of the product, rendering their valuable right under Section 24(4) defeated and the criminal complaint was quashed under Section 482, Cr.P.C.
22. In Cr. Misc. Petition No. 806/89 and other, the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in a reference, has held that delay in filing of the complaint which has virtually resulted in denial of the right guaranteed under Section 24(4) of the Act, is to be quashed because the prejudice is inherent.
23. In S.K. Ahuja v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 19/86, the copy of the report of the Public Analyst was not supplied to the manufacturer, the prosecution was launched with undue delay and they were served much after the expiry of the shelf life of the insecticide product. It was held that right to re-analyse the sample in the C.I.L. is a valuable right of the accused under Section 24(4) of the Act and that dragging the prosecution against the manufacturer would amount to abuse of the process of the court. It was also pointed out by this Court that Section 24(4) of the Act requires legislature reconsideration by some amendment in order to fill up, make up or plug the loop-holes on account of which the manufacturer can go scot-free even if may be guilty. It was also pointed out that similar lacuna or loop-holes were existing in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, but those were removed/plugged by amendment by the Legislature, however, similar amendments have not been made in the Act.
24. In U.S. Madan v. State, 1991 Cri LR 799; S.K. Ahuja v. State, 1991 Rajasthan Cri C 254, Artio Minerals v. State, 1992 Cri LR (Raj) 59 and Agrawal Khan Bhandar v. State, 1993 Cri LR (Raj) 510, the criminal complaints were launched after the expiry of the period of shelf life of the insecticide of which the samples were taken. It was held that the accused was deprived of the right to get the sample re-analysed under Section 24(4) and (4) of the Act and that continuance of the trial would amount to abuse of the process of law.
25. In Hindustan Ciba Geigy's case, the Licensing Authority, Hanumangarh Junction by letter dated 15-12-1990 had issued show cause notice to the petitioners as to why their registration or licence be not cancelled under the Act and the Rules, to which the petitioners had replied by letter dated 21-1-1991 and asserted that it was highly improper and illegal on the part of the Insecticide inspector to have sent the sample directly to the C.I.L. and disputed the correctness of the report of the Analyst. In Indofil Chemicals Co.' s case, the Assistant Plant Protection Officer, Jodhpur by his letter dated 4-2-1991, issued a show cause notice to the dealer and the petitioners and the distributors to show cause as to why criminal proceedings be not launched against them but copy of the Analyst report was not send to the petitioners. The petitioners in their reply dated 19-2-1991 had challenged the said report and asserted that the sample could not have been sent directly to the C.I.L. But, in both the cases, the Insecticide Inspectors deliberately did not take any action against the petitioners and kept silent for a pretty long time. In Hindustan Ciba Geigy's case, the Insecticide Inspector sent the case for sanction as late on 17-8-1991 and the consent under Section 31(1) for prosecution was given on 30-8-1991. In Indofil Company's case, the prosecution sanction was given on 6-5-1992, that is after the expiry of shelf-life of the insecticide product.
26. Admittedly, in both these cases, the criminal complaints were filed in the courts much after the expiry of the period of shelf-life of the produce and the petitioners were served more than a year thereafter. No reason for this inordinate delay in filing the complaints was given. Since in both these cases the criminal complaints were filed much after the expiry of shelf life of the insecticide produce, the petitioners' right for getting the second sample of their manufactured/marketed product re-analysed by the C.I.L. was not at all available. It appears that due to deliberate lethargic inaction on the part of the Insecticide Inspectors, the criminal complaints against the petitioners were filed with inordinate delay, much after the expiry of the period of shelf-life of the insecticide produce and thus the petitioners have been deprived of their valuable right under Section 24(4) of the Act. The criminal proceedings against the petitioners, therefore, will be a sheer waste of public time and money and no useful purpose will be served by dragging the prosecution against them.
27. As a matter of fact, the learned Magistrate/ Chief Judicial Magistrate while taking cognizance against the petitioners ought to have taken into consideration this material and important fact that the criminal complaints have been filed against them much after the expiry of the shelf-life of the insecticide products and that thereby they have been deprived of their valuable right of re-analysing the second sample in the C.I.L. under Section 24(4) of the Act. In my considered opinion, taking cognizance against the petitioners in these case amounts to abuse of the process of the court and that to secure the ends of justice it is necessary to quash the proceedings in these cases because even the dealers and distributors of the alleged misbranded insecticide products have also been deprived of their valuable right, given to them under Section 24(4) of the Act. Therefore, on this count alone further prosecution of petitioners would amount to abuse of process of the court and proceedings launched against them through the criminal complaints filed under the Act deserve to be quashed.
28. Hence, it is not necessary to decide as to whether sanction for prosecution issued under Section 31(1) of there Act suffers from the defect of vagueness and material defect.
29. The up-shot of the above discussion is that both the petitions are allowed and the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 238/91, State v. Hindusthan Ciba Geigy Ltd., pending in the Court of learned Judl. Magistrate, Hanumangarh, Junction and proceedings in Criminal Case No. 178/ 93, State v. Rathi Pesticides and Fertilizers and Ors., under Section 29 of the Act, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur City, are hereby quashed.