JUDGMENT Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) - By filing this petition, petitioner has prayed that the complaint, Annexure P/1 dated 12.9.1997 under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticide Act, 1968 (in short the Act) read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticide Rules, 1971 be quashed. 2. It is cas of the petitioner that he was a retail dealer and had purchased Weedicide called 2, Ethyl Ester 36% EC. from its manufacturer namely M/s Herbicide India Limited. He had kept the product in a proper condition, as it was originally sealed. It is apparent from the records that on 2.1.1997, Harminder Singh, complainant, Insecticide Inspector, Mallanwala, Block Zira visited the shop of the petitioner and had drawn three samples of above named Weedicide. It is apparent from complaint, Annexure P/1 that three sealed containers of Weedicide, each measuring 1000 ml (1 litre) were taken as sample. It is also apparent from form XX, Annexure P/4 that the drawn samples were in its original packing. On analysis, samples were found to be mis-branded. Counsel for the petitioner contended that he had purchased the substance, in dispute, from a licensed manufacturer and he could not now (know ?) that the substance contravened any of the provisions of the Act. It has further been contended that the Weedicide/Insecticide, while in his possession, was properly stored and remained in the same state as of when same was purchased from the manufacturer. 3. Upon notice issued, reply has been filed by the respondent, wherein it has virtually been admitted that the samples drawn were in sealed containers. However, an attempt has been made to show that the seals of the containers were not properly intact. This fact that the seals were not intact, does not find mention in the original complaint. Counsel for the petitioner further contended that if this was the situation, he could not be prosecuted and is entitled to take defence, as available to him under Section 30(3) of the Act. This fact that the seals were not intact, does not find mention in the original complaint. Counsel for the petitioner further contended that if this was the situation, he could not be prosecuted and is entitled to take defence, as available to him under Section 30(3) of the Act. Above mentioned provision reads as under :- "A person not being as importer or a manufacturer of an insecticide or his agent for the distribution thereof, shall not be liable for contravention of any provision 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 provisions 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." 4. To support has contention, counsel has relied upon three judgments of this Court in M/s Delhi Agriculture Store, Lohian Khas v. State of Punjab, 1997(1) Recent Criminal Reports 42, M/s Rajindra Prasad v. State of Haryana, 1998(1) Recent Criminal Reports 163 and Hardit Singh v. Union of India, 1998(4) Recent Criminal Reports 865. Counsel prays that complaint qua him be quashed. 5. This prayer has vehemently been controverted by Shri Gill, appearing on behalf of the State. He has stated that the defence, as available to the petitioner, is a matter of fact and is required to be proved by leading evidence. However, he has failed to show anything from the complaint and also from the Form XX i.e. annexures P/1 and P/4 respectively, that there was any allegation to the effect that the seals of the containers, which were taken as samples were not intact or substance was not properly stored. 6. Under these circumstances, this Court feels that the case is squarely covered by the ratio of judgments in cases M/s Delhi Agriculture Store, Lohian Khas, M/s Rajindra Prasad and Hardit Singh (supra), wherein it had been laid down that the dealer is entitled to get benefit of the protection of Section 30(3) of the Act if the substance/sample drawn was in its original condition. In the case in hand, it is the case of the respondent even in the complaint that three sealed containers were taken as a sample In view of this, the present application is allowed and the FIR qua the petitioner, who is the dealer is quashed. Application allowed.