Honble KHAN, J.–On behalf of Mr. J.K. Singhi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, a request was made by Mr. S.R. Joshi, Advocate, that the hearing of this petition be adjounred. This petition had been filed in this Court on 8.7.96 and the record of the lower court has also been requisitioned here. Looking to the necessity of hearing the matter I do not think it proper that further adjournment should be allowed in this case. The prayer made is, therefore, rejected and I examined the impugned order and the record of the lower court. (2). In this case on 31.1.1992, the complainant Insecticides Inspector had taken the sample of an insecticide, called `Thirem 75% WSP batch No. 91-C-465, manufactured in April, 1991 with the date of expiry falling in March, 1993. The said Insecticide had been manufactured by M/s. J.K.B.M. Ltd. On analysis, the State Pesticides Testing Laboratory, Bikaner, certified by its report dated 25.3.92 that the insecticide was mis-branded. The Insecticides Inspector, therefore, sent notices to the sellers M/s. JKBM Ltd. and Sh. Lajpat Raipuri at Calcutta as also to the manufacturers and their directors. The seller appears to have intimated the Insecticides Inspector that he would like to get the insecticide re-analysed by the Director of the Central Insecticide Laboratory as per their right u/s. 24(4) of the Insecticide Act, 1968 (the Act). The Insecticide Inspector, the complainant, however, filed a complaint on 21.1.93 u/s. 29(1)(A) of the Act against the sellers and the manufactures of the said insecticide, numbering seven persons in all. It may be mentioned that on the date fixed for appearance of the accused, i.e. 26.3.93, the accused appeared and moved an application u/s. 24(4) of the Act, requiring the re-analysis of the insecticide by the Director, Central Insecticide Laboratory. No orders on this application were passed for sufficiently long time and the prosecutor continued to seek adjournment to advance his arguments on the said application of the accused per- sons. By the time the expiry date of the insecticide had already expired in April, 1993 and the learned Magistrate vide his order under challenge, dismissed the application with the observation that the accused persons had not exercised their right u/s. 24(4) at the appropriate time. By the time the expiry date of the insecticide had already expired in April, 1993 and the learned Magistrate vide his order under challenge, dismissed the application with the observation that the accused persons had not exercised their right u/s. 24(4) at the appropriate time. The facts of the case reveal themselves that the accused persons had intimated the Insecticide Inspector as also the learned Magistrate to their intention of getting the insecticide re-analysed by exercising their rights u/s. 24(4) of the Act and getting the sample re-analysed by the Director Central Insecticide Laboratory. (3). It further appears that on behalf of the accused persons, reliance had been placed before the learned Magistrate on a decision of this court in the case of U.S. Madan vs. State (1) wherein it had been held that the right of an accused u/s. 24(4) was a valuable right and if such right gets frustrated by the act of prosecution, the accused cannot be held guilty of an offence under the Act. In the present case the learned Magistrate has ignored the decision of this court. In this case it was established on record that the valuable right of the accused persons u/s. 24(4) of the Act had got frustrated by willful act and conduct of the Insecticide Inspector himself. It was surprising that the prosecutor of the case continued to obtain adjournments for arguments on such application which had been moved by the accused persons to exercise their statutory right u/s. 24(4) of the Act and the learned Magistrate, in his discretion, continued to grant such adjournments to him ignoring the fact that the Insecticide should be got re-analysed before the date of its expiry. Since the accused person, including the present petitioner, could not exercise their valuable right u/s. 24(4) of the Act due to the fault of either the Insecticides Inspector or his counsel or even of court, the petitioner and, for that matter any of the accused persons, could not be successfully prosecuted and their prosecution had no chances to terminate into their conviction. Their prosecution before the learned court amounts to abuse of the process of the court and to secure the ends of justice such abuse must be brought to an end. (4). Their prosecution before the learned court amounts to abuse of the process of the court and to secure the ends of justice such abuse must be brought to an end. (4). In the result, the impugned order is vacated and set aside the prosecution pending in the court of the learned Magistrate is hereby quashed and the pettion is allowed. The said Insecticides Inspector be issued a notice to show cause as to why he should not be asked to pay the cost of this litigation and compensation to the accused persons for his deliberate act of not producing the second sample in the court in answer to the request, made by the accused before and after filing of the complaint. (5). A copy of this order shall be sent to Addl. Registrar, Rajasthan High Court, to the Director Agriculture, Rajasthan for information and necessary action.