JUDGMENT 1. - This misc. petition has been filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. by the petitioners against the order dated 22.6.2011 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Bundi, In regular criminal case No. 385/2007 whereby it rejected the prayer of the petitioners for quashing the criminal proceedings under section 204 Cr.P.C. in the matter of section 24(4) and section 29(1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 on account of depriving the right of re-analysis of sample. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Insecticides Inspector inspected the premises of the petitioners on 20.9.1995 and took sample of insecticides. A sample was sent to the State Laboratory and the same found sub- standard as per report dated 20.11.1995. In compliance to the notice to petitioner No. 1 reply was given by the petitioner and deceased manager Amar Lal about dis-satisfaction of the analysis report and provide the bill of distributor. The consent was given by the Joint Director for prosecution of the petitioners vide order dated 12.2.1996. The shelf life of sample was upto 21.5.1996 and the prosecution was launched against the petitioners on 4.4.1996 and summons were Issued to the accused petitioners for 15.5.1996. The accused petitioners Immediately submitted an application on 15.5.1996 for re- analysis of sample and the court fixed next date 6.6.1996 for order on the application. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the accused petitioners that the prosecution was launched against the petitioners on 4.4.1996 and summons were issued to the accused petitioners for 15.5.1996 and on that date the accused petitioners put in appearance and immediately on that date filed application for re-analysis of the insecticides but the application was kept pending and no order was passed for re-analysis and the shelf life of sample expired on 21.5.1996. In these circumstances the accused petitioners are entitled for acquittal and the prosecution was liable to be set aside against them.Mr. Peeyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State invited my attention towards para 7 of the order of the trial court dated 22.6.2011 rejecting the application for re-analysis. In these circumstances the accused petitioners are entitled for acquittal and the prosecution was liable to be set aside against them.Mr. Peeyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State invited my attention towards para 7 of the order of the trial court dated 22.6.2011 rejecting the application for re-analysis. Para No. 7 of the order reads as under : " 7- ;gka ;g mYys[kuh; gS fd izkFkhZx.k us mDr izkFkZuk i= ij cgl gsrq U;k;ky; ds le{k mDr rF;ksa ds izdk'k esa dHkh cy ugha fn;k vkSj ckj&ckj cgl nj[okLr gsrq le; ysrs jgsA vc uewus dh vof/k lekIr gks tkus ls mls dsUnzh; iz;ksx'kkyk esa fo'ys"k.k gsrq Hksts tkus dk dksbZ vkSfpR; ugha gSA " 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I have also gone through the order passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 22.6.2011. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate that the accused petitioners through their counsel were in the knowledge that the sample was to expire on 21.5.1996 but in spite of that for hearing on the application for re-analysis they took adjournments again and again and hence the re-analysis could not be ordered of a sample earlier whose shelf life expired on 21.5.1996. The accused petitioners knowingly did not press the application before expiry of the sample life. Thus the application of the accused petitioners was rightly dismissed by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate. Thus the order the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate. Thus the order of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 22.6.2011 is just and proper and does not call for any Interference in the inherent jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.PC.For these reasons, the misc. petition does not survive and stands dismissed. The stay application also stands dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******