The report submitted by the analyst was to the effect that the material did number companyform to the prescribed standard and was, therefore, misbranded.
PG 86 the expiry date was February, 1993.
The intimation of the receipt of the report was sent to the dealer on 10.1.1992 and to the appellants on 16.1.1992.
The report was received by the inspector on 2.1.1992.
prescribed under Insecticides Act, 1968, the sample was divided into different parts of which one was given to the person from whom the sample was companylected and another was sent to the state insecticides laboratory for analysis.
The companyplaint was filed in companyrt against the companypany and its managing director and directors, alleging companymission of offence punishable under Section 29 1 a of the Insecticides Act, 1968.
B/10 172 was September, 1993 and for phonates 10 G batch No.
Long thereafter in July, 1992 the inspector took steps to obtain permission of the companypetent authority to launch criminal prosecution.
He companylected samples of the materials for examination.
On receipt of the intimation about the state analyst report the appellants sent intimation to the inspector expressing their intention to lead evidence against the report.
The intimation was sent within the period prescribed under the Act.
Permission was granted 2 years thereafter in July 1994.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
B/10 172 and phonates 10 G which are the materials in question in the present proceeding .
Leave granted.
The factual backdrop of the case which is relevant for appreciating the companytentions raised may be stated thus M s Gupta Chemicals Pvt.
On 31.10.1991, the insecticides inspector visited the shop of a dealer where these products were being sold.
Ltd. is engaged in manufacture of pesticides and insecticides including B.H.C. 10 dust, batch No.
