JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. 2. The prosecution was launched against the petitioners by State of Rajasthan under Insecticide Act, 1968 before Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Hanumangarh Junction. The complaint mentions that M/s. Moolchand Deendayal, a firm situated in Hanumangarh Town, deals with insecticide melathion 50 EC. The shop was checked and a sample of said insecticide was taken by the Inspector of the Department, who is called Insecticide Inspector, on 21.7.1986. He has power and authority to take a sample. This sample was sent to the Insecticide Analyst and he reported that it does not to confirm to the specifications. Complaint was filed before the Magistrate on 6.1.1988 and the learned Magistrate took cognisance on the same day by summoning the petitioners who were manufacturers as well as dealer who sold insecticide. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that admittedly the date of manufacture of the sample is September, 1985 and the date of expiry is August, 1987 but the complaint was filed on 6.1.1988. By that time the life of the sample was over as the expiry date was some time in August, 1987. He, relying on State of Haryana v. Unique Farmaid P. Ltd. & Ors., JT 1999(8) SC page 162, submitted that in such a case when the manufacturer had lost the right to request the court to send the sample to the Central Laboratory, the proceedings should be quashed. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor was not able to controvert this settled position of law 5. Admitted facts are that manufacturing date of sample is September 25, 1985 and expiry date is August, 1987 and the complaint was filed on 6.1.1988 and the order taking cognisance was passed on the same day. The learned Magistrate should not have taken cognisance in this case as the sample had already expired on the date when complaint was submitted. He could not have sent the sample to the Central Laboratory on the request of accused persons. The Supreme Court in the above citation has held that when the accused was deprived of his valuable right to have the sample tested from the Central Insecticides Laboratory under sub-sec. (4) of Section 24 of the Act, it prejudices his defence. The Act provides procedure for testing the sample. It is contravened in this case to the prejudice of the accused. (4) of Section 24 of the Act, it prejudices his defence. The Act provides procedure for testing the sample. It is contravened in this case to the prejudice of the accused. In these circumstances accused has certainly a right to seek dismissal of the complaint. In this view of the matter the petition deserves to be accepted.The petition is hereby allowed and the complaint as well as proceedings on the basis of the complaint qua petitioners as well as other accused persons against whom the complaint was filed and against whom learned Magistrate has taken cognisance, are hereby quashed.Petition Allowed - Proceedings quashed. *******