IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.44768 of 2008 M/S Indofil Chemicals Company, Nirlon House, Dr.Annie Besant Road, Mumbai (Maharastra), through its General Manager, H.R. ----- Petitioner Versus The State Of Bihar ----- Opposite Party For the petitioner : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate Mr. D.N. Tiwari, Advocate Mr. Vijyanand, Advocate For the State : Mr. J. Upadhyay, A.P.P. ----------- 2 1.8.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. This application has been filed against the order dated 27.1.207 taking cognizance under Sections 31(1) and (2) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The facts are that a sample was taken on 16.2.2005 with respect to Mancozeb-75% (W.P. Insecticides). The date of manufacturing of the said insecticides is mentioned as 21.11.2004, whereas the date of expiry is mentioned as 21.11.2006. The insecticide was manufactured by M/S Indofil Chemicals Company, Nirlon House, Dr.Annie Besant Road, Mumbai. The sample was sent for testing on 18.2.2005. The report was received on 14.6.2005. However, the case was instituted after expiry of the shelf life of the insecticide concerned. It is, therefore, submitted that the complaint petition itself would not be maintainable on the ground that the petitioner has lost the opportunity to file an application before the Court to get the said sample retested as it has already lost its shelf life. Specifically sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Act has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana 2 Vs. Unique Farmaid P. Limited & Ors. [2001 (1) PLJR 27 (SC)]. The Supreme Court considering the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 24 of the Act has come to a conclusion that the complaint should be filed expeditiously so that the right of the accused could not be lost. In the present case, by the time the respondents were asked to appear before the Court, the shelf life of the insecticides had already expired and, therefore, the petitioner deprived the right for sending the sample for examination in Central Insecticides Laboratory. Similar is the decision of this Court in the case of Abhimanyu Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (Cr. Misc. No. 47724 of 2007). In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court and this Court, this Court finds that the order of cognizance and the complaint case should be quashed. In the result, the order dated 27.1.2007, passed in Case No. C (2) 09 of 2007, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur is quashed. This application is allowed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)