JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners have filed this petition purported to be Under section 482 Criminal Procedure Code against the order dated 22.4.1993 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali in Criminal Original Case No. 681 of 1993, State v. Gajendra Seed Stores and Ors. whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners for the offences falling Under section 29(l)(a) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short the 'Act'). 2. The relevant facts are that petitioner No. 1 M/s. Pesticides India is a registered company, which carries on the business of manufacturing and sale of all Pesticides and Insecticides. Its Unit is stationed at Udaipur. It is alleged that on 17.9.1991, Insecticide - Inspector Shri Harish Chandra Joshi took a sample of insecticide by the name monotrophophos 36 SL batch No. 91E 219. That sample was sent for chemical analysis to the State Pesticides Testing Laboratory, Durgapura, Jaipur. The sample was analysed on 30.10.1991 and the analysis report is dated 30.10.1991. It shows that the sample was found to be misbranded as the requisite percentage of active ingredients of the commodity were found to be less than what were specified on the bottle. The expiry date of the above Insecticide was printed on the bottle and it was 4.10.1992. 3. After the receipt of the above report, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner Company by the Assistant Director, Agricultural Department, Govt, of Rajasthan, Pali on 19.11.1991. The petitioner Company replied to the said notice on 26.11.1991 denying the correctness of the above analysis report. The petitioner company also expressed its desire to get the other sample examined by the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad. However, no action was taken by the aforesaid Assistant Director on the reply and request made by the petitioner Company. It appears that on 17.4.1993, the respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner and one M/s. Gajendra Seed Stores, Pali and its Proprietor, from whom, the sample was seized. On the above complaint, the learned Magistrate took cognizance on 22.4.1993. Notice to the petitioners was sent on 28.4.1995. 4. The petitioners have moved this petition for quashing the order dated 22.4.1993 as also the complaint dated 17.4.1993 on the ground that the continuance of the above complaint is nothing but an abuse of the process of the court. On the above complaint, the learned Magistrate took cognizance on 22.4.1993. Notice to the petitioners was sent on 28.4.1995. 4. The petitioners have moved this petition for quashing the order dated 22.4.1993 as also the complaint dated 17.4.1993 on the ground that the continuance of the above complaint is nothing but an abuse of the process of the court. The petitioners have stated that the expiry date of the above Insecticides was 4.10.1992 and the complaint was filed on 17.4.1993. Hence, the sample taken on 17.4.1991 became useless and it would be futile to send the second sample now to the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad. By filing the complaint so late, the petitioners have been deprived of their valuable right conferred by s. 24(4) of the Act. The learned Magistrate, therefore, committed a grave error in taking cognizance on the complaint filed by the respondents against the petitioners. 5. I have heard Mr. Sandeep Mehta, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. S.G. Ojha the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has drawn my attention to the very valuable and salutory provision safeguarding the interest of the person involved conferred by section 24(4) of the Act. Section 24(4) of the Act confers a right on the person involved to get the second sample analysed by the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad. Since the complaint in this case was lodged on 17.4.1993 and the sample has expired on 4.10.1992, the second sample has, therefore, become useless and no useful purpose would have been served if the second sample is sent for analysis to the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance on U.S. Madan v. State, 1991 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 799 and Hindustan Ciba Geigy Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Raj. & Ors., 1994 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 785 . 7. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the accused could exercise his right conferred by s. 24(4) of the Act. The fate of the accused would have been decided by the report of the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad and without exercising the above right, it cannot be said that the accused have been deprived of their valuable right to get the second sample re-analysed. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar. 9. The fate of the accused would have been decided by the report of the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad and without exercising the above right, it cannot be said that the accused have been deprived of their valuable right to get the second sample re-analysed. 8. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar. 9. The basic facts relevant for the disposal of this petition have been mentioned by me. This court in Hindustan Ciba-Geigy Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Raj. & Ors., 1994 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 785 elaborately discussed the provisions of Section 24 of the Act and the right available to the accused under section 24(4) of the Act. It has been held that if the life of the Insecticide has expired before the complaint was filed, the accused shall be deemed to have deprived of his valuable right of getting the second sample reanalysed in terms of Section 24(4) of the Act. It was also held that the continuance of such proceeding is nothing but is an abuse of the process of the Court and, therefore, the proceedings were quashed. 10. In another case, U.S. Madan's case (supra), in similar circumstances, it was held that since the petitioner has been deprived of the right to get the second sample reanalysed, to allow the trial of the petitioner would amount to the abuse of the process of the court. The proceedings were therefore, quashed. 11. In the instant case, I have already mentioned the relevant dates. It has not been disputed before me that the life of the Insecticide, of which the sample was taken expired on 4.10.1992. If the second sample would have been analysed before the expiry of the life of the Insecticides, useful purpose would have been served, it was for the respondents to have taken steps to file the complaint without any delay so that in case, the accused opted for reanalysis of the second sample, the sample could have been sent to the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad. If the respondent filed the complaint with inordinate delay, laches can be attributed to the respondent and the accused have every right to claim that their prosecution was the abuse of the process of the court inasmuch they have been deprived of their valuable right conferred by Section 24(4) of the Act. 12. If the respondent filed the complaint with inordinate delay, laches can be attributed to the respondent and the accused have every right to claim that their prosecution was the abuse of the process of the court inasmuch they have been deprived of their valuable right conferred by Section 24(4) of the Act. 12. In the instant case, since the complaint was lodged after inordinate delay and the petitioners were served as late as on 28.4.1995, the petitioners could not exercise the right enshrined in Section 24(4) of the Act. In the cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it has been held that such continuance of the proceedings amounts to the abuse of the process of the court. 13. In such circumstances, I allow this petition and quash the complaint as also the order dated 22.4.1993 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pali taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offence Under Section 29(1)(a) of the Act.Petition Allowed. *******