JUDGMENT 1. - The present miscellaneous petition has been preferred by the petitioners seeking quashing of the proceedings undertaken against them in Criminal Original Case No. 26/2001 pending in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pokaran, District Jaisalmer for the offences under Sections 3(K)(I), 17(1)(A) and 29(I)(A) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short, "the Act of 1968"). 2. The facts giving rise to the instant miscellaneous petition are that the District Extension Officer (IGNP) cum Insecticide Inspector, .Bikampur, District Bikaner, took a sample of insecticide namely Monocrotophos from the premises of the firm M/s. Srinath Agro Centre, Nachana, District Jaisalmer. The sample was taken on 28.8.2000 and as per the seizure proceedings, the date of manufacturing of the insecticide was February 2000 and its expiry date was July, 2001. The sample was sent to the State Pesticides Testing Laboratory, Bikaner, from where a report dated 3.10.2010 was received declaring the sample to be misbranded. The insecticide Inspector issued a notice dated 7.11.2000 to the petitioner company and the petitioner company, by its registered letter dated 21.11.2000, intimated their intention to challenge the report of the State Pesticide Testing Laboratory, Bikaner by having the sample sent for examination and analyzed from the Central Laboratory as per the provisions of Sections 24(3) and 24(4) of the Act of 1968 and the requisite fee of Rs. 500/- was also deposited by the petitioners. Thereafter the second sample of the insecticide was.forwarded to the Central Laboratory by registered parcel on 17.1.2001. In the meantime, the Insecticide Inspector, after completing the formalities, with requisite sanction etc., proceeded to file a complaint against the petitioners and other co-accused persons in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner and cognizance was taken against the persons arrayed as accused in the complaint on 27.1.2001 for infringement of the provisions of the Act of 1968. 3. After their appearance, the petitioners apprised the learned Magistrate by an application dated 14.3.2007 regarding non-receipt of the report of the Central Laboratory in pursuance of the earlier prayer made by the petitioner company, i.e. M/s. Northern Minerals Ltd. to the Insecticide Inspector. 3. After their appearance, the petitioners apprised the learned Magistrate by an application dated 14.3.2007 regarding non-receipt of the report of the Central Laboratory in pursuance of the earlier prayer made by the petitioner company, i.e. M/s. Northern Minerals Ltd. to the Insecticide Inspector. The Insecticide Inspector through the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, gave a reply that the report was still to be received, but thereafter the report of the Central Laboratory dated 1.2.2001 has been placed on record of the Court below, the conclusion whereof reads as below : "The said parcel was broken completely in transit and containts leaked out completely. Your letter also was drenched. A fresh sample duly packed in leak proof container may be sent." 4. Thus, it becomes apparent that when the second sample was received by the Central Laboratory, there was nothing in the parcel which could have been examined by the Central Laboratory. The sample having been damaged was communicated to the complainant way back in the year 2001, but the complainant, for the reasons best known to him, chose to sit over the said report (probably to shield his own negligence) and thereafter only when the accused persisted with their request for report of the Central Laboratory being brought on record, ultimately the same has been placed on record, as per which the sample was totally damaged. 5. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Northern Minerals v. State, AIR 2010 SC 2829 was examined a case wherein the sample was not forwarded to the Central Laboratory despite an application of the accused and held that the right of the accused to challenge the report of the State Laboratory is a mandate by Sections 24(3) ad 24(4) of the Act of 1968 and if there is any breach of the said rights then the proceedings against the accused cannot be continued. 6. In the present case, the situation is even beyond the said case. Admittedly, the accused submitted the application to the Insecticide Inspector, whereupon the second sample was sent to the Central Laboratory, but it was received by the Central Laboratory in a damaged condition. 6. In the present case, the situation is even beyond the said case. Admittedly, the accused submitted the application to the Insecticide Inspector, whereupon the second sample was sent to the Central Laboratory, but it was received by the Central Laboratory in a damaged condition. Thus, undisputedly the right of the accused to challenge the report of the State Laboratory has been defeated by the act of the complainant in not taking action subsequent to the intimation given by the Central Laboratory regarding the sample having been found in a damaged condition, rather it becomes apparent from the record that the very report of the Central Laboratory was tried to be concealed. 7. Resultantly, in this case also, it is the firm opinion of this Court that on account of the sample having been damaged in transit, the accused were deprived of their right to challenge the report of the State Laboratory by having the second sample of the insecticide analyzed by the Central Laboratory. Resultantly, continuance of the proceedings against the petitioners, now, in relation to the seizure of insecticide is obviously an abuse of the process of the Court. The upshot of the above discussion is that the miscellaneous petition succeeds. The impugned order dated 27.10.2011 is set aside and all the criminal proceedings going on against the petitioners and other accused persons in Criminal Original Case No. 26/2001 pending in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pokaran, District Jaisalmer are hereby quashed.Petition allowed. *******