Judgment Jasbir Singh, J. 1. Petitioners, claiming themselves to be dealers of pesticides, have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer that complaint dated 16.8.1996 (Annexure P-3), filed against them, under Section 29(1)A of Insecticides Act, 1968 (in short `the Act), be quashed. It was further prayed that subsequent proceedings arising out of that complaint, be also quashed. Counsel for parties heard. 2. It has been contended by counsel for the petitioners that their firm M/s Walia Pesticides is only a dealer. Material, i.e. insecticides was purchased from M/s. Jai Shree Agro Industries Limited at Delhi. He has further stated that sample was drawn in its original packing. To stress and substantiate this argument, counsel has referred to column No. 7 of Annexure P-2 i.e. Analysis Report of the pesticides, in dispute. He has also referred to paragraph 6 of the complaint Annexure P-3. 3. A perusal of all these documents clearly indicates that on 18.3.1993, three tins of Jai Shree Melathion 50% were purchased in its original packing, against a bill No. 508 of even date. Analysis Report Annexure P-2 also indicates that sample was in its original sealed condition when it was received for analysis. 4. Counsel for petitioners, by referring to above mentioned facts, has stated that petitioners are entitled to protection of Section 30(3) of the Act. His prayer has vehemently been opposed by Mr. A.S. Ladhar, AAG Punjab appearing on behalf of respondent. 5. Facts clearly indicate that the petitioners, are the partners of a firm which deals in sale of insecticides and pesticides. Nothing has been brought on record to show that sample was tempered with or was not stored in a proper condition by the petitioners. Case of the petitioner is squarely covered by a judgment of Honble Apex Court in M/s. Kisan Beej Bhandar, Abohar v. Chief Agricultural Officers, Ferozepur and another, 1990 SCC(Crl.) 623. Their Lordships of Supreme Court, in paragraph 4 of that judgment, opined as under :- "4. The High Court took the view that by enacting sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act, Parliament had taken out the element of mens rea from consideration and, therefore, knowledge was not at all material. Their Lordships of Supreme Court, in paragraph 4 of that judgment, opined as under :- "4. The High Court took the view that by enacting sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Act, Parliament had taken out the element of mens rea from consideration and, therefore, knowledge was not at all material. Appellants counsel has argued that protection of sub-section (3) is available not only to prosecutions but also to every contravention of the Act and cancellation of licence for contravention of the Act and cancellation of licence for contravention of the Act is also a matter covered by sub-section (3). We are inclined to accept the submission and take the view that whether it is prosecution or contravention leading to cancellation, sub-section (3) applies. In that view of the matter, on the facts found that it was a full tin in a sealed condition, the liability arising out of misbranding was not of the appellant. Unless he had any other source of information about misbranding - and it has not been established - the appellant is entitled to the protection of (sic) appellants contention that it was a sealed tin intact has been found, the burden that lay on him under the provisions of sub-section (3) had been satisfactorily discharged, even in the matter of considering the question of cancellation of licence and, therefore, his licence should not have been cancelled. We allow the appeal, reverse the order of the High Court and the authorities and restore the licence. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs." 6. In view of reasoning given above, this petition is allowed, complaint dated 16.8.1996 Annexure P-3 and subsequent proceedings taken in pursuance thereof, are quashed, qua the petitioners only. Petition allowed.