Judgment Ashutosh Mohunta, J. 1. This is a petition for quashing of the complaint. Annexure P3 filed by the State of Haryana through Plant Protection Officer Insecticide Inspector, Hissar under Section 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 which is pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fatehabad. 2. The petitioners are Insecticide Dealers and had stored Monocrotophos 36 manufactured by M/s United Pesticides New Industry Area Rawabhata Raipur. The manufacturer is duly licensed to manufacture the same. The insecticide was kept in original packing sent by the manufacturer to the dealer. 3. The sample of this insecticide was drawn by the Insecticide Inspector on 18.9.1993 from the premises of the petitioners in original packing and sent for analysis to the Senior Analyst, Quality Control Laboratory, Karnal, who after analysis, opined that the sample was found misbranded to the extent 31.21% against the required ISI specification of 36%. In view of the report of the Senior Analyst, Karnal the present complaint was filed. 4. Mr. Lakhanpal, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the sample of insecticide was taken from a sealed packing supplied by the manufacturer. The Insecticide Inspector has not mentioned anything in the complaint which would suggest that the packing was tampered with or that the seal of the packing was broken. In these circumstances, it is contended that the dealer cannot be held liable for the deficiency in the contents of the sample drawn, but the complaint should have been filed against the manufacturer. He has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of M/s Onkar Pesticides v. State of Punjab, 2002(2) RCR(Criminal) 101. 5. It has further been argued by learned counsel that the complaint in the present case was filed on 26.4.1994. Prior to the filing of the complaint, the petitioners had submitted an application for having the second sample analysed through the Central Laboratory. The sample was sent, on which the report was that the parcel whcih contained the sample, was leaking badly and thus, it was unfit for analysis. Learned counsel has argued that it has prejudiced the defence of the petitioners, inasmuch as the second sample could not be analysed, the same having been found unfit for analysis due to leakage for which it is the respondent alone, who is straightaway responsible for this because the second sample was in his possession. 6. Learned counsel has argued that it has prejudiced the defence of the petitioners, inasmuch as the second sample could not be analysed, the same having been found unfit for analysis due to leakage for which it is the respondent alone, who is straightaway responsible for this because the second sample was in his possession. 6. After perusing the contents of the petition as well as the complaint, and the report of the Public Analyst, I have come to the conclusion that there is nothing to suggest in the complaint that the container which contained the sample of Monocrotophos insecticide was tampered with in any manner. It is not stated that the seals were broken or the packing has been tampered with. The dealer cannot be expected to know what is the quality of the insecticide in the sealed container. In these circumstances, the complaint could not have been filed against the dealers. The present case is fully covered by the judgment in M/s Onkar Pesticides case (supra). 7. Coming to the second point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is pertinent to mention that the petitioners had a right to have a second sample analysed through the Central Laboratory. This right was greatly prejudiced because by the time they exercised their right to get the second sample analysed, the sample had started leaking and was declared unfit for analysis. The petitioner had applied on 28.3.1994 to get the second sample analysed even prior to the filing of the complaint, but even by that date the sample could not be analysed. Thus, an inference can be clearly drawn that the sample was not kept in safe and proper place and therefore, the petitioners right to have the second sample analysed was infringed. 8. I have also heard the learned State counsel who contended that the insecticides was mis-branded, therefore, it is only for the trial Court to decide with regard to punishment to be meted out to the petitioners in respect of the insecticide, being misbranded. I find no force in this contention. 9. Consequently, in view of the findings above, the present petition is allowed and the complaint, Annexure P3, dated 26.4.1994 qua the petitioner pending before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Fatehabad is quashed. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.