Judgment K.C.Gupta, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by M/s. Hyderabad Chemicals Supply Limited for quashing the complaint under Section 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short "the Act,") and the rules made thereunder for violation of Section 3(k) (17) and (18) of the Act, and all the consequential proceedings arising out of the said complaint pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that M/s. Hyderabad Chemicals Supply Limited is a manufacturing Company and is manufacturing different types of insecticides, pesticides and weedicides under a licence granted by the Central Board of Insecticide, Government of India, New Delhi. 3. On 17.8.1995, the Quality Control Inspector inspected the premises of M/s. Haryana Land Reclamation & Development Corporation, Gobindpuri, Yamunanagar, and took a sample of carbendazin 50% WP, Batch No. 737, date of manufacturing 6/95 and expiry date May 1997. After completing the formalities, one sample was sent to the Senior Analyst Quality Control Laboratory, Kamal. The said sample was found to be misbranded as the same did not comply with the I.S.I. specifications active ingredients. 4. It was next averred that on the basis of the analysis report, complaint, Annexure P-1, was filed in the Court against the petitioner and the Dealer under Section 29 of the Act, on 3.7.1996. The petitioner was ordered to be summoned for 28.9.1996 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri. However, service could not be effected upon the petitioner on various dates as mentioned in the petition. Ultimately, the petitioner was served and he appeared in the Court on 28.10.1997 and was released on bail. The shelf life of the sample expired in May 1997. 5. Counsel of the petitioner contended that there was hardly any time for the petitioner to make a request for sending the second sample for re-analysis to the Central Insecticides Laboratory as the shelf life of the sample had already expired in May 1997 and, thus, his valuable right under the Act, for getting the second sample re-analysed had been lost without any fault on his part. For this contention, he placed reliance on two authorities i.e. State of Haryana v. Unique Farmaid P. Ltd., 1999(4) RCR (Criminal) 540 : [1999(4) AII lndia Criminal Law Reporter 399 (SC)] and State of Punjab v. National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd., 1998(4) RCR (Criminal) 578 [199/(1) All India Criminal Law Reporter 353 (SC)], which supported the above contention of the learned counsel. He also referred to another authority of the Honble Apex Court i.e. M/s. Gupta Chemical Private Limited v. State of Rajasthan and others, Crl. Appeal No. 591 of 2002 arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 3091/2001 decided on April 18, 2002 in which it was observed that if the shelf life of the sample of insecticides seized had expired, then no steps would be taken for its examination. In these circumstances, since valuable right has been denied to the petitioner for re-analysis, so, continuation of the complaint is an abuse of the process of Court. 6. Accordingly, the Crl. Misc. Petition is accepted and the complaint, Annexure P-1 and the consequent proceedings thereof are quashed.