JUDGMENT 1. - The aforementioned Criminal Misc. petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking quashing of the proceedings going on against them in the Court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Udaipur in Criminal Case No. 388/1996 for the offence under Sections 16A; 17C, 18A(1), 27A, 27D and 28 of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act. The petitioners submitted that they were vendors of the drug in question and in this case, the medicine" Oxyphenbutazone" was seized from the petitioners on 7.12.1988. It is alleged that, as per the cover of the tablet, the date of manufacturing of the tablet was "May, 1987" and the date of the expiry was "May, 1989", therefore, the shelf-life of the drug was only for two years, i.e., till may, 1989. After the seizure of the tablet, the Drug Inspector sent a sample of the drug for analysis to the Government Analyst of the Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, from where, report was received regarding the drug being sub-standard. It is also admitted case of the prosecution that the copy of the test report was sent to the petitioners by letter dated 3.6.1989, that is by the time when the shelf-life of the sample had already expired. Thus, counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners were deprived of their valuable rights for having the second sample analysed by the Central Drugs Laboratory guaranteed by Section 25(3) and (4) of the Act. The counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of M/s Medicamen Biotech Ltd. v. Rubina Bose, Drug Inspector, 2008 (3) SCALE 363 . Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the manufacturer challenged proceedings in this very case by way of S.B. Cri. Misc. Petition No. 595/2002-Unicure (India) Pvt. Ltd. (M/s.) & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2007 (2) CJ (Raj.) Cr. 589 and the prosecution as against the manufacturer was quashed by this Court on 26.3.2007 on this very ground, that is, the accused's right to challenge the Government Analyst's report being infringed because the notice to the accused about the report of the Government Analyst was given after the expiry of the shelf-life of the sample. 2. Per contra. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the proceeding against the petitioners should not be quashed. 3. 2. Per contra. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the proceeding against the petitioners should not be quashed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and have perused the impugned order. 4. Suffice it to say that from the facts mentioned above, it becomes apparent that the petitioners had a right to challenge the report of the Government Analyst or having the same sent to the Central Drugs Laboratory. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the judgment referred above has clearly held that if the notice to the accused of the Analyst report about the sample being not of standards is given just when she shelf-life of the medicine is about to be over, it will amount to denial of the accused's right to have the second sample of the medicine analysed by the Central Drugs Laboratory, which would vitiate the proceedings. This Court while dealing with the case of Ms. Unicure who were the manufacturers of the drug in question, in this very complaint, has quashed the proceedings for violation of Section 25 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. 5. Upshot of the above discussion is that the prosecution of the petitioners cannot be said to be justified and the criminal proceedings against the petitioners deserve to be quashed. 6. In this view of the matter, this Criminal Misc. Petition filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the proceedings is allowed and the criminal proceedings going on against the petitioners in the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Udaipur in Criminal Case No. 388/1996 are hereby quashed. Consequently, the stay petition also stands disposed of.Petition allowed. *******