Judgment M.L.Singhal, J. 1. On 21.9.1993, Sher Singh, Insecticide Inspector, Bhatinda inspected the business premises of M/s Godrej Agrovet Limited, Bhatinda. At that time, Shri Gurdial Singh, Agriculture Officer, Bhatinda and Shri Pritpal Singh, Agricultural Development Officer, Bathinda were with him. M/s Godrej Agrovet Limited, Bhatinda was dealer dealing in the sale, stock for sale insecticides/pesticides under Licence IN pest/Bathinda/22/1992-93 valid up to 31.12.1993 issued by the Licensing Authority (Chief Agricultural Officer, Bathinda). At the time of the inspection Shri Sher Singh found 788 litres of Cypermethrine 10% EC one litre each in original displayed at the premises for sale. Shri Sher Singh disclosed his identity to Harinder Singh who was present at the spot at the relevant time that he was Insecticides Inspector, Bhatinda authorised to seize the samples of insecticides/pesticides from ones business premises with a view to have them analysed from the Central Insecticides Testing Laboratory, Faridabad. He took out one litre Cypermethrine 10% EC Batch No. 03 manufactured in August, 1993 by M/s Vallabh Pesticides Manufacturing Company, Bombay and paid the price thereof to Shri Harinder Singh. He unsealed the said piece of one litre Cyhpermethrine 10% EC Batch No. 03 and divided it into 3 equal parts. He sealed each of those parts with his own seal. He handed over one sealed packet and Form No. XXII to Harinder Singh. He sealed the two remaining samples with his own seal and made them into packets. Each of the parcels was signed by Harinder Singh and the witnesses. He handed over one sealed sample parcel to Harinder Singh, while he deposited the remaining two samples in the office of the Chief Agricultural Officer, Bathinda for record. One of the said samples deposited by him in the office of Chief Agricultural Officer, Bhatinda was sent to the Central Insecticides Testing Laboratory, Faridabad. Sample was found to be "misbranded" not conforming to the ISI specification in the active ingredients. The active ingredients were found to be only 14.5% instead of 10% EC. After the receipt of the report of Central Insecticides Testing Laboratory, Faridabad, Sher Singh filed complaint under Sections 3k(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticide Act, 1968 read with rule 27(5) of Insecticide Rules, 1971 against D.S. Bhullar and Harinder Singh of M/s Godrej Agrovert Limited, Bhatinda. Shri R. Raja Shekhar, Director, M/s Vallabh Pesticides Private Limited 50, Trimurti IInd Floor, Prof. Shri R. Raja Shekhar, Director, M/s Vallabh Pesticides Private Limited 50, Trimurti IInd Floor, Prof. VS Agabe Road, Dadar (West), Bombay was also arrayed as an accused being manufacturer of this brand of insecticides. 2. Vide order, Annexure P.2, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhatinda ordered the manufacturer as well as the insecticides dealers to be summoned for trial. 3. D.S. Bhullar and Harinder Singh have knocked the door of this court through this Crl. Misc. whereby they have challenged the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhatinda dated 24.12.1996 whereby they have been summoned to stand trial under Sections 3k, 17, 18, 29 and 33 of Insecticides Act, 1968 read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that they are only insecticides dealers. They were dealing in the sale of insecticides in the same condition in which they had received the same in sealed containers from the manufacturer. It is submitted that if there is any misbranding of the insecticides that might have taken place at the level of the manufacturer. No misbranding of the insecticides could take place at the level of the dealer when the dealer was selling it in the same condition in which it had been received from the manufacturer. Dealer was selling the insecticide in sealed containers. In support of this submission he seeks to draw support from the provisions of Section 30(3) of the Insecticide Act, 1968. Section 30(3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 reads as follows : "(3) A person not being importer or a manufacturer of an insecticide or his agent for the distribution thereof, shall not be liable for a contravention of any provisions of this Act, if he proves : (a) that he acquired the insecticide from an importer or a duly licensed manufacturer, distributor or dealer thereof; (b) that he did not know and could not, with reasonable diligence, have ascertained that the insecticide in any way contravened any provision of this Act; and (c) that the insecticide, while in his possession, was properly stored and remained in the same state as when he acquired it." It was admitted in the reply filed by Sher Singh Insecticides Inspector, Bhatinda that when he took the sample, it was in sealed condition and the seal was intact. 5 In my opinion, the provisions of Section 30(3) of the Act do come to the aid of the petitioners when they were dealing in the sale of insecticides in the same condition in which they had received it from the manufacturer in original pack. This Criminal Misc. is accordingly allowed. Complaint qua the petitioners is quashed. All other proceedings taken in the complaint are also quashed. Petition allowed.