mandatory provisions of the Act, the accused have no remedy. Procedure for testing the sample is prescribed and if it is contravened to the prejudice of the accused, he certainly has right to seek dismissal of the complaint. There cannot be two opinions about that. Then in order to safeguard the right of the accused to have the sample tested from Central Insecticides Laboratory, it is incumbent on the prosecution to file the complaint expeditiously so that the right of the accused is not lost. In the present case, by the time the respondents were asked to appear before the Court, expiry date of the insecticide was already over and sending of sample to the Central Insecticides Laboratory at that late stage would be of no consequence. This issue is no longer res integra . In State of Punjab v. National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. [ (1996) 11 SCC 613] this Court in somewhat similar circumstances said that the procedure laid down under Section 24 of the Act deprived the accused to have sample tested by the Central Insecticides Laboratory and adduce evidence of the report so given in his defence. This Court stressed the need to lodge the complaint with utmost dispatch so that the accused may opt to avail the statutory defence. The Court held that the accused had been deprived of a valuable right statutorily available to him. On this view of the matter, the court did not allow the criminal complaint to proceed against the accused. We have cases under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act , 1940 and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act , 1954 involving the same question. In this connection reference be made to decisions of this Court in State of Haryana v. Brij Lal Mittal [ (1998) 5 SCC 343] under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act , 1940; Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ghisa Ram [ AIR 1967 SC 970] ; Chetumal v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr . [ (1981) 3 SCC 72} and Calcutta Municipal Corporation v. Pawan Kumar Saraf, [ (1999)] 2 SCC 400] all under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act , 1954.
