JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code seeks quashing of the proceedings rending against the petitioners in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur in Cr. Case No. 124/01 for the offence under Section 29(1)(a) of the Insecticides Act, 1%8 (hereinafter called in short as 'the Act'). 2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts necessary for the disposal of this petition are that a compliant was filed in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur for the aforesaid offence on 20.12.2000 against the petitioners and others with the allegation that the petitioner No. 2 to 4 are Directors of petitioner No. 1 which firm was checked on 24.8.2000 and samples of Krogar (Dimethoate) bearing Batch No. 42 manufacturing date 7/99 and expiry date 12/2000 were taken and the sample to the State Analyst for analysis was found to be misbranded. A copy of the report alongwith notice was sent to the petitioners' firm. In response thereto the petitioners' firm informed the department within the prescribed period that they intended to adduce evidence in controversion of the report of the State Analyst and for that purpose the sample be got retested by the Director, Central Insecticides Laboratory on their under section 482, Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the proceedings pending against petitioners in the court of CJM Jodhpur in Cr. case No. 124 of 2001. expenses. But, no action was taken. The shelf life of the sample in question expired before the petitioners were summoned for the first time vide order dated 18.4.2001 for 29.6.2001. As such, they were deprived of their valuable right to get the sample retested by the Central Insecticides Laboratory as per the provisions of Section 24(4) of the Act. So, they have prayed for quashing the criminal proceedings pending against them. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State and have perused the record as also the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the sample was taken on 24.8.2000. Its date of manufacture was 7/99 and date of expiry was 12/2000. On analysis by the State Analyst, the sample was found to be misbranded. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the sample was taken on 24.8.2000. Its date of manufacture was 7/99 and date of expiry was 12/2000. On analysis by the State Analyst, the sample was found to be misbranded. A copy of the report dated 25.10.2000 was sent to the petitioners' firm vide letter dated 6.11.2000 requiring them to submit their reply, if any, by 14.11.2000. The petitioners' firm vide its letter dated 20.11.2000 informed the Assistant Director (Agriculture) Jodhpur that they intend to get the sample examined and analysed by the Central Insecticides Laboratory on their expenses. The complaint was filed on 20.12.2000 and they were summoned for the first time on 18.4.2001 for 29.6.2001 and in the meanwhile shelf life of the sample in question expired. It has, therefore, been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as a result of late filing of the complaint and inaction on the part of the concerned authorities to send the same to the Director, Central Insecticides Laboratory the petitioners have been denied of their valuable right to get the sample retested by the Central Insecticide Laboratory about which they had given timely intimation. So, the criminal proceedings pending against them are liable to be quashed on this ground alone and in this regard he has placed reliance upon the following authorities : (1) 1997 Cr.L.R. (S.C.) 246 (State of Punjab vs. National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd.) (2) 1997 Cr.L.R. (S.C.) 249, (Sukhdeo vs. The State of Maharashtra) (3) 1999 C.L.J. 3794, (Babulal Agarwal & Anr. vs. Associate Director and others) (4) J.T. 1999 (8) SC 162, (State of Haryana vs. Unique Farmaid P. Ltd. & Ors.) (5) 2001 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 819 (B.L. Agarwal (Shri) & ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) (6) 2001 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1772 (Pawan & Company and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan) (7) 2002 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 170, (B.L. Industries vs. State of Raj. & Anr.) (8) 2002 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 560, (U.S. Madan Artee Minerals & Anr. vs. The State of Rajasthan) (9) 2000 (2) R.C.C. 1463, (Cvanamid Agro India Ltd. & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) (10) 2000 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 120, (Gupta Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan) (11) 2002 (1) R.L.R. 581 , (M/s. Hindustan Palvarising Mills & Ors. vs. State of Raj.) 4A. vs. The State of Rajasthan) (9) 2000 (2) R.C.C. 1463, (Cvanamid Agro India Ltd. & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) (10) 2000 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 120, (Gupta Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan) (11) 2002 (1) R.L.R. 581 , (M/s. Hindustan Palvarising Mills & Ors. vs. State of Raj.) 4A. In all these authorities, it has been uniformly And consistently held that if the accused persons are deprived of their valuable right to get the sample retested by the Central Insecticide Laboratory due to the delayed filing of the complaint, the continuance of the criminal proceedings pending against such accused would tantamount to abuse of the process of the court and such proceedings are liable to be quashed. In this light of the matter, detailed discussion of these authorities seems to be unnecessary. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has neither disputed the aforesaid facts of this case nor he could show anything contrary to the law laid down in the aforesaid authorities. 6. I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the facts of this case and have also perused the record. 7. In view of the well-settled principles of law in the aforementioned authorities and in view of the facts of this case, it is abundantly clear that the petitioners have been deprived of their valuable right to get the sample retested by the Central Insecticide Laboratory on account of delayed filing of the complaint and in the meanwhile shelf life of the sample expired. So, as held in the aforesaid authorities the continuance of criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners clearly tentamounts to abuse of the process of the court and same deserves to be quashed in exercise of inherent powers vested in this Court tinder Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code. In the result, this petition is allowed and the proceedings pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur in criminal case No. 124/2001 for the offence under Section 29 (1) (a) against the petitioners are hereby quashed. Petition allowed. *******