JUDGMENT 1. - This Criminal Misc. Petition under section. 482 Criminal Penal Code is directed against the order dated 1.7.1997 of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Nohar in Cr. Case No. 226/97 taking cognizance against the petitioners for the offences under sections. 17, 18 r/w Section 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter called in short `the Act') and against the order dated 22.12.2000 whereby the application filed by and on behalf of the petitioners for dropping the proceedings against them, has been rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nohar in Cr. Case No. 46/98 to whom the case appears to have been transferred in the meanwhile. 2. Briefly, stated the relevant facts are that respondent No. 2-Anand Swaroop Chimpa, the Insecticides Inspector, Nohar checked and took sample on 12.12.1995 from M/s. Saini Pesticides Stores, Nohar who is the authorised dealer of the insecticides drugs and on getting a part of the sample of man cozeb 75% w.p. examined by the State Insecticides Testing Laboratory, the sample was found misbranded as per its report dated 8.2.1996. A notice along with a copy of the report was sent to M/s. Saini Pesticides Store, Nohar on 14.11.1996 who informed that the said drug was purchased by them from M/s. Modi Pesticides and Fertilizers, Nohar and the same was manufactured by M/s. Lupin Agro Chemicals (India) Ltd., Gujarat. The sample which was taken, was from a batch manufactured in August 1994 and, it was to expire in July 1996. No notice along with copy of the report appears to be sent to the manufacturer. The petitioners who received the notices on 19.11.1996 sent reply thereto on 14.12.1996 wherein they clearly indicated that they wanted to get the anther sample of the drug in question examined again by the Central Insecticides Laboratory for which they were prepared to make the payment of the necessary fee. But another part of the sample was not sent to the Central Insecticides Laboratory for examination and test and the complaint was filed on 1.7.1997 and on the same day cognizance was taken against the petitioners. It is to be noticed that the shelf life of the sample expired in July 1996 i.e. long before filing of the complaint. 3. But another part of the sample was not sent to the Central Insecticides Laboratory for examination and test and the complaint was filed on 1.7.1997 and on the same day cognizance was taken against the petitioners. It is to be noticed that the shelf life of the sample expired in July 1996 i.e. long before filing of the complaint. 3. The petitioners applied on 5.12.2000 for dropping the proceedings against them on the ground that the shelf life of the sample had expired before filing of the complaint and so they had been deprived of their valuable right to get the another part of the sample examined, analysed and tested by the Central Insecticides Laboratory. The said application was rejected by the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class. Hence, this petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State and have also perused the record. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that they have been deprived of their statutory opportunity to have the sample tested by the Central Insecticide Laboratory and as a result thereof they have been denied valuable defence which was statutorily available to them. It has there- fore, been contended that the proceedings pending against them in the Court below clearly amount to abuse of the process of the Court and deserve to be quashed. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is fully supported and fortified by the law laid down in the following authorities of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as of this Court : 1. State of Punjab v. National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd., (1997) Cr.L.R. (SC) 246 ; 2. Bayer India Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (1997) WLC (Raj.) UC 630 ; 3. B.L. Agrawal (Shri) & Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., (2001) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 819 ; 4. Pawan & Company (Ml s.) & Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan, 2001 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 772 ; 5. Babulal Agaawal & Anr. v. Associate Director & Ors. etc., 1999 Cr.L.J. 3794 ; 6. B.L. Industries (M/s.) v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2002 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 70 ; 7. U.S. Madan, Manager, Artee Minerals & Anr. v. The State of Rajasthan, 2002 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 560 ; 8. Babulal Agaawal & Anr. v. Associate Director & Ors. etc., 1999 Cr.L.J. 3794 ; 6. B.L. Industries (M/s.) v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2002 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 70 ; 7. U.S. Madan, Manager, Artee Minerals & Anr. v. The State of Rajasthan, 2002 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 560 ; 8. State of Haryana v. Unique Farmaid P. Ltd. & Ors., (1999) 8 SCC 162 ; 9. Cyanamid Agro India Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., (2000) 2 RCC 1463 ; 10. Gupta Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. (Mls.) v. State of Rajasthan, 2000 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 120 ; 11. M/s. Hindustan Palvarising Mills & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, 2002 (1) RLR 581 . Learned Public Prosecutor has not cited any authority to the contrary. He has simply argued that the contentions raised before this Court may be arguments and the Court below has rightly refused the application for dropping the proceedings because it had no power to review its own order. 6. I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the submissions made at the bar. 7. It may be stated at the outset that the facts are not in dispute. The sample was taken on 22.12.1995 and the report of the analysis by the State Insecticides Analyst was dated 8.2.1996. A notice along with a copy of the report was sent to the non-petitioner on 14.11.1996 which they received on 19.11.1996 and in reply thereto they informed in writing on 14.12.1996 i.e. within 28 days of the receipt of the notice that they wanted to get another part of the sample examined and tested by the Central Insecticides Laboratory and the another part of the sample was not got examined by the Central Insecticides Laboratory as desired by the non-petitioner. The complaint was filed on 1.7.1997 and the cognizance had been taken on the same day but the shelf life of the sample had expired in July 1996 and there was no use of sending the sample for analysis to the C.I.L. by the Court. 8. The complaint was filed on 1.7.1997 and the cognizance had been taken on the same day but the shelf life of the sample had expired in July 1996 and there was no use of sending the sample for analysis to the C.I.L. by the Court. 8. In all the above mentioned authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it has been consistently held that where the accused are deprived of their statutory opportunity to have the sample tested by the CIL their valuable right to get the report of the State Insecticides Analyst superseded by the report of the Director C.I.L. is frustrated and to continue the proceedings against the accused in such a case are rendered fruitless and the High Court is justified in exercise of its inherent powers under section. 482 Criminal Penal Code to quash such proceedings. 9. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have in the latest case of "State of Haryana v. Unique Farmaid P. Ltd. & Ors.", reported in JT 1999 (8) SC 162 clearly held that where the shelf life was over before the prosecution was launched, the High Court had rightly quashed the prosecution as accused was deprived of his valuable right and he was prejudiced in his defence. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have referred to the case of "State of Punjab v. National Organic Chemicals Industries Ltd.", reported in 1997 Cr.L.R. (SC) 246 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court stressed the need to lodge the complaint with utmost dispatch so that the accused may opt to avail the statutory defence. 10. The facts of the instant case being akin and identical to the facts of those cases. The instant case is squarely governed by these authorities. 11. In view of the well-settled position of law in this regard, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the continuance of the proceedings against them tantamount to abuse of the process of the Court is well-founded and deserves to be accepted and the prosecution pending against them deserves to be quashed. 12. In the result, this petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Nohar are hereby quashed.Petition allowed. *******