JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner No. 1 is a firm of which petitioner No. 2 is the Chief Executive. The petitioner No. 1 manufactures insecticides. Non petitioner No. 2 is a dealer in insecticides while Nos. 3 and 4 are its partners. The prosecution under the Insecticides Act was launched against the petitioners as well as the non-petitioners nos. 2 to 4 and this petition has been moved by the petitioners to quash the proceedings against them. The main ground on which this petition has been moved is that the petitioner's right to get the sample analysed has been taken away and when this valuable right goes away then the prosecution cannot proceed. 2. On 23-6-1983 sample insecticide was purchased by insecticides Inspector and sent for analysis. The sample was found to be not according to specifications. A copy of this report was sent to the dealer, thereafter prosecution was launched only in the year 1985. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the manufacturing date of the insecticide was June, 1982 and the date of expiry was June, 1984 and when the prosecution was launched 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. 3. The report of the analysis was sent to the dealer only and the manufacturer had no knowledge about the report or the prosecution or the purchase of sample. Section 24(3) of the Insecticides Act would be applicable to the dealer to whom the report should have been sent. In 1991 RCC, 254 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 proceedings against the manufacturer were quashed to prevent the abuse of the process of court. The other cases 1981 Criminal Law General 264 and AIR 1967 Supreme Court 970 have been relied upon in this decision. 4. The other cases 1981 Criminal Law General 264 and AIR 1967 Supreme Court 970 have been relied upon in this decision. 4. In the present circumstances it is obvious that the petitioner has been deprived of the right to get the sample re-analysed and in such circumstance to allow the trial of the petitioner to proceed would amount to abused of the process of court and the proceedings against these petitioners deserves to be dismissed.Accordingly this petition is accepted and proceedings against them are quashed.Petition allowed. *******