M.C. JAIN, J —This petition u/sec. 482 Cr.P.C. is directed for quashing the proceedings relating to the prosecution of the petitioner for the offence u/sec. 13/29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968. 2. A complaint was filed against the petitioners by the Inspector Insecticides Sri Ganganagar for the offence u/sec. 13/29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 with the allegations that on 24-9.83 he visited the shop of M/s Ganga Sahai Badrinath, Ganganagar and a sample of Dye-macron manufactured by the petitioners company was taken and when a bill was obtained it came to the notice that the petitioner company is stocking the insecticides without licence. The representative of the petitioner company Shri R.P. Parashar petitioner no. 4 expressed that the petitioner company has got no licence for stocking the insecticides. The petitioner no. 2 Shri H.P. Panwani is the Chief Executive Officer and petitioner no. 3 Shri R.R. Bhatnagar is the Area Manager of the petitioner company. The stock was seized and a complaint was filed on the ground that the petitioner had stocked the insecticides without licence. 3. The petitioners case is that there is an agreement between the petitioner company and its stockist distributor M/s Ganga Sahai Badrinath. A copy of the agreement has been placed on the record. It. is agreed upon between the parties that the petitioner company has allowed the distributor to hold the stocks on the terras and conditions mentioned in the agreement. The distributor was permitted to raise invoices in the name of the customers but in every invoice delivered to the customers a rubber stamp would be put bearing the words:- "The goods listed on this invoice are sold from stocks being the property of Ciba Giegy of India Ltd.". There are further conditions agreed upon with regard to the payment of money realised from the said proceeds of the stock. The godown would be of the distributor and the distributor will store the stocks in his godown although the company will insure the stocks and a certain limit has been fixed between the parties regarding maximum value of stock, which will be supplied by the petitioner company to the distributor. 4. The godown would be of the distributor and the distributor will store the stocks in his godown although the company will insure the stocks and a certain limit has been fixed between the parties regarding maximum value of stock, which will be supplied by the petitioner company to the distributor. 4. A legal question arises as to whether the petitioner manufacturing company is also required to obtain a licence when the insecticides are sent by the petitioner company to its distributor for sale, although till the goods are sold, the property is the property of the manufacturing company. The relevant part of sec. 13 (1) reads:- "Any person desiring to manufacture or to sell, stock or exhibit for sale or distribute any insecticides, or to undertake commercial post control operations with the use of any insecticides may make an application to the licensing officer for the grant of a licence." A perusal of the above provision would show that any person who stocks insecticides for sale is required to obtain a licence. Under the agreement consignment is sent by the petitioner company to its stockist or distributor and it is the distributor or the stockist who stocks insecticides for sale. It is true that the property remain the property of the petitioner company under the agreement but that does not mean that the petitioner company stocks insecticides for sale. In fact, it is the distributor or the stockist who stocks the insecticides for sale and such person is required to obtain a licence and for that an application has to be made by him for the grant of licence. It is not in dispute that the distributor M/s Ganga Sahai Badrinath had a licence for keeping stock. As a matter of fact the said distributor possesses two licences as would appear from the telegram produced in this court. The Joint Director Agriculture has sent a copy of the telegram to the District Agricultural (Licensing Officer and the Insecticides Inspector). It has teen communicated to him that under the provisions of Insecticides Act, separate licences for sale, stock and exhibit of pesticides at different places irrespective of the same proprietor, have to be obtained by the distributor. M/s Ganga Sahai Badrinath, Ganganagar have separate licences No. 350 for sale and No. 381 for stocking in godown. It would appear from the perusal of sec. M/s Ganga Sahai Badrinath, Ganganagar have separate licences No. 350 for sale and No. 381 for stocking in godown. It would appear from the perusal of sec. 13 that insecticides cannot be stocked for sale without licence and if any one does it, then Sec. 29 is attracted which makes it an offence. Any person who manufactures sells, stocks or exhibits for sale or distributes any insecticides without a licence is punishable as provided in sub-sec. 1 of sec. 29. ft is the distributor who stocks the insecticides for sale. It is true that the stocks are supplied by the manufacture but the manufacture does not stock for sale. The stocks are stored in godown kept by the distributor. Sec. 13 and Sec. 29 do not provide that the owner of the property is required to obtain the licence. If the insecticides are stocked by anyone-else although the ownership thereof vests in the manufacturer or someone else, it is only that person who actually stocks the insecticides for sale is required to obtain the licence and not the owner of the insecticides. Titles ownership of the insecticides are not relevant for the purpose of Sec. 13. If the manufacturer is required to obtain licence and he or it will have to obtain licences through the country where agents, distributors or stockists are appointed through whole sales are effected. It is they who actually stock for sale. It is true that in the present case, ownership has not been transferred, that is why every invoice is required to bear the seal as agreed upon between the distributor and manufacturer but on that basis it cannot be said that the petitioner company and its officer have contravened Sec. 13, so are liable u/sec. 29 (1) (c). In my opinion, in the above view of the matter no offence can be said to have been committed by the petitioners and so the entire proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. 5. Accordingly this petition is allowed. The prosecution and the proceedings against the petitions are quashed and set aside.