Garg, J.
1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused petitioners, who are ., Abu Road and Ors. (1), for the offence under Section 29(1)(a) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1968') pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Abu Road be quashed.
2. It maybe stated here that dealer M/s. Abu Road Krishi Kraya Vikraya Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Abu Road and its Manager Gopi Kishan and its Salesman Ramesh Chandra are not party before this Court.
3. It arises in the following circumstances :-
On 22.8.1992, a complaint was filed by Rajmal Parihar, Insecticide Inspector and Agriculture Officer, (Plant Protection) Sirohi in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Abu Road against the present accused petitioners, who are ., Abu Road and its Manager Gopi Kishan and Salesman Ramesh Chandra stating inter alia that on 30.11.1991 he inspected the shop of M/s. Abu Road Krishi Kraya Vikraya Sahakari Samiti, Abu Road and took sample of the insecticide Methyl Parathion 2% dust for the purpose of analysis and prepared fard and divided the sample into three parts as required by the law. One of the samples was sent for analysis to the State Pesticide Testing Laboratory, Government of Rajasthan, Durgapura, Jaipur through letter dated 2.12.1991 by-the Insecticide Inspector, Sirohi and the Insecticide Analyst, State Pesticide Testing Laboratory, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur gave his report on 15.1.1992, in which it was reported that the sample of methyl parathion 2% dust does not conform to the relevant specification in active ingredient and hence, it was misbranded. It was also stated in the report that batch number of the insecticide package was 91D 63-23 and date of manufacturing was 4.1.1991 and date of expiry was 3.12.1992.
When the sample was not found in accordance with the prescribed standard, a notice dated 21.1.1992 was given b the Insecticide Inspector, Sirohi to the dealer M/s. Abu Road Krishi Kraya Vikraya Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Abu Road, from whom, sample was taken and on the same day, a notice was also given by the Insecticide Inspector, Sirohi to the Manager, Pesticides India Ltd., Udaipur of which, Salil Singhal was Managing Director, Paras Hingad was Deputy Manager and Yusuf was General Manager and these persons are accused petitioners before this Court.
Thereafter, after obtaining sanction for prosecution, the Insecticide Inspector and Agriculture Officer (Plant Protection), Sirohi filed the complaint on 22.8.1992 against the present accused petitioners and M/s. Abu Road Krishi Kraya Vikraya Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Abu Road and its Manager Gopi Kishan and Salesman Ramesh Chandra, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Abu Road.
On the same day i.e. on 22.8.1992, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Abu Road took cognizance against the accused petitioners and others mentioned in the complaint for the offence under Section 29(1)(a) of the Act of 1968 and thereafter, notices were issued to the accused petitioners as well as to the dealer by the Court.
Thereafter, on behalf of the dealer M/s. Abu Road Krishi Kraya Vikraya Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Abu Road, two persons, namely, its Manager Gopi Kishan and its Salesman Ramesh Chandra appeared in the Court on 7.9.1992 and on the same day, they filed in application before the Court praying that the sample which was taken from them on 30.11.1991 be sent for re-analysis to the Central Insecticide Laboratory. That application was accepted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Abu Road and vide letter dated 9.9,1992, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Abu Road sent the sample for re-analysis to Director, Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad (Haryana), The report of the Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad (Haryana) is dated 5.11.1992, where the Central Insecticide Laboratory came to the conclusion that the sample does not conform to the relevant specification in active ingredient content requirement and is, therefore misbranded.
It may be stated here that the date of manufacturing of the insecticide in question was 4.1.1991 and the date of expiry was 3.12.1992 and before the expiry period of the insecticide in question, the complaint was filed on 22.8.1992 and there is also no dispute that service was not effected on the present accused petitioner upto 3.12.1992.
4. In this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., looking to the above facts, it has been submitted by the accused petitioners that since the date of manufacturing of the insecticide in question was 4.1.1991 and date of expiry was 3.12.1992 and till then, the accused petitioners were not served with the notice of the Court and since the shelf-life of the insecticide in question expired, therefore the accused petitioners have been deprived of their valuable right to get the sample re-tested from the Central Insecticide Laboratory and thus, prejudiced their defence and hence, on this ground alone, the proceedings against the present accused petitioners are liable to be quashed.
5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that since the complaint was filed before the expiry period of the sample in question and on the request of the dealer M/s. Abu Road Krishi Kraya Vikraya Sahakari Samiti, Abu Road, the sample in question was sent to Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad where Central Insecticide Laboratory was also opined that the sample was misbranded and in these circumstances, now the accused petitioners have no right to get the sample in question retested from the Central Insecticide Laboratory.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the accused petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.
7. From perusing the record of the present case, it appears :-
(1) That on 30.11.1991, sample of insecticide in question was taken by the Insecticide Inspector and Agriculture Officer (Plant Protection), Sirohi from M/s. Abu Road Krishi Kraya Vikraya Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Abu Road, who was dealer and this accused is not party before this Court.
(2) That the dale of manufacturing of the insecticide in question was 4.1.1991 and date of expiry was 3.12.1992.
(3) That the said sample was sent to Insecticide Analyst, State Pesticide Jesting Laboratory, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur and the report of the Insecticide Analyst is dated 15.1.1992, where it was reported that the sample was misbranded.
(4) That thereafter, notices were given to both dealer as well as manufactures by the Insecticide Inspector, Sirohi.
(5) That after obtaining sanction, a complaint was filed by the Insecticide Inspector and Agriculture Officer (Plant Protection), Sirohi on 22.8.1992 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Abu Road.
(6) That on the same day i.e. on 22.8.1992, the learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against the present accused petitioners and dealer and notices were issued to them.
(7) That on 7.9,1992, Gopi Kishan and Ramesh Chandra appeared in the court on behalf of the dealer M/s. Abu Road Krishi Kraya Vikraya Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Abu Road and presented an application with the prayer that the sample be got relested from the Central Insecticide Laboratory and that application was allowed and the learned Judicial Magistrate sent the sample to the Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad (Haryana) for re- analysis.
(8) That report of the Central Insecticide Laboratory, Faridabad (Haryana) is dated 5.11.1992 where it was also reported that the sample was misbranded.
(9) That before the period of expiry of the insecticide in question, the accused petitioners were not served with the notice of the Court.
8. Now the question that arises for consideration is whether in the above facts and circumstances when on the request of one of the accused persons mentioned in the complaint, the report of the Central Insecticide Laboratory has been received in time, the present accused petitioners though they were not served with the notice of the court before the expiry period of sample in question, can still claim right for retesting of the sample through Central Insecticide Laboratory or not.
9. In my considered opinion, when the sample has been re-tested within time at the request of one of the accused persons mentioned in the complaint, the present accused petitioners cannot claim that right, as the report of the Central Insecticide Laboratory has been received in time. When this being the position, it cannot be said that the accused petitioners have been deprived of their valuable right to get the sample re- tested from the Central Insecticide Laboratory nor can be said that their defence has been prejudiced and on this ground, the complaint cannot be quashed.
10. So far as other grounds are concerned, they are pure questions of fact and they have to be determined during trial and after recording evidence.
11. It may be stated here that High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction of quashing a criminal proceeding only when the allegations made in the complaint do not constitute an offence or that the exercise of the power is necessary either to prevent the abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. No inflexible guidelines or rigid formula can be set out and it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case wherein such power should be exercised. When theallegations in the complaint prima facie constitute the offence against any or all of the accused and in the absence of materials on record to show that the continuance of the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of the court or would defeat the ends of justice, the High Court would not be justified in quashing the complaint.
12. Since in the present case so far as the valuable right to get the sample re-tested from the Central Insecticide Laboratory is concerned, the same would not be available now and in absence of that, it cannot be said that there is no prima facie case against the accused petitioners. Hence, it is not a fit case where complaint should be quashed in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
For the reasons stated above, this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the accused petitioners is liable to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed.