JUDGMENT Surya Kant, J. (Oral) - The prayer in this petition is for quashing of the complaint (Annexure P-1) under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18 and 33 punishable under Section 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 read with Rule 27(5) of Insecticides Rules, 1971 as well as the summoning order passed therein qua the petitioners. 2. Insecticides Inspector, Ferozepur visited the premises of petitioner No. 1 on 25.6.1998 and took a sample of Phorate 10% G in 1 Kg. packing manufactured by M/s. Safex Chemicals (India) Limited. Three packets of one Kg. each of Phorate 10% G bearing batch No. SX-270 with manufacturing date 5/98 and expiry date 4/99 were taken for sample and thereafter sent to the Testing Laboratory at Amritsar. Based upon the analysis report, "sample does not conform to the I.S. specification in respect of its per cent active ingredient contents hence mis-branded", the impugned criminal complaint was filed against petitioner No. 1 and its partners, i.e., petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 as well as manufacturer of the product, namely, M/s. Safex Chemicals (India) Limited. The petitioners, having been summoned, have approached this Court for quashing of the aforesaid complaint as well as the summoning order. 3-4. It appears that relying upon the analysis report of the sample dated 25.6.1998, referred to above, the Chief Agriculture Officer, Ferozepur, in exercise of his powers under Section 14 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 cancelled the licence for sale of insecticides of the petitioner No. 1-firm. Aggrieved at the said order, petitioner No. 1 preferred a statutory appeal under Section 15 of the Act. While allowing the said appeal vide order dated 2.11.998 (Annexure P-4), the appellate authority observed as follows :- "Shri Sarwan Singh Kaholon, Advocate has stated that the appellant-firm had bought this insecticide as manufactured by Registered Manufacturing Company and it has been sold in the same condition as it was purchased. The seal of the sample was intact on analysis as fixed by the Insecticide inspector at the time of sampling. Shri Iqbal Singh, Agriculture Development Officer, has appeared on behalf of Chief Agriculture Officer, Ferozepur was asked whether at the time of sampling seal was fixed, upon which he answered that it is correct. The seal of the sample was intact on analysis as fixed by the Insecticide inspector at the time of sampling. Shri Iqbal Singh, Agriculture Development Officer, has appeared on behalf of Chief Agriculture Officer, Ferozepur was asked whether at the time of sampling seal was fixed, upon which he answered that it is correct. Learned counsel stated that there is no fault whatsoever of the dealer and he fulfills all conditions of Section 30(3) of Insecticides Act, 1968 and hence he is entitled for the protection under this Section. Keeping in view all these facts, I grant the protection of Section 30(3) to the appellant firm and restore the licence of this firm but I do not allow this dealer to sell Phorate 10% G insecticide as manufactured by M/s. Safex Chemicals India Limited, because this dealer has sold the misbranded insecticide to the farmers. The Chief Agriculture Officer, Ferozepur is hereby asked to take action as per Insecticide Act and Rules.". In view of the above reproduced observations made by the Appellate Authority, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contends that it stands established beyond any doubt that seals upon the three packets of Phorate 10G were found intact at the time when the same were taken into possession by the Insecticides Inspector from the premises of petitioner No. 1. It is, thus, contended that no fault can be attributed to petitioner No. 1 who was found selling the product in the same condition as was marketed by its manufacturer, namely, M/s. Safex Chemicals India Limited. Relying upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Rajinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, 2003(2) RCR(Criminal) 240 it is contended that once the petitioner firm has been exonerated of the allegations by the departmental authorities, its prosecution under the Act is impermissible. 5. In Rajinder Kumars case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held as follows :- "However, there is one exception to the aforesaid legal position. 5. In Rajinder Kumars case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held as follows :- "However, there is one exception to the aforesaid legal position. If on the basis of the report of Public Analyst, in which the sample of insecticide taken from the dealer was found to be misbranded, the licence of the said dealer had been suspended or revoked under Section 14 of the Act by the Licensing Authority; and if such dealer filed appeal against the order of revocation and suspension of his licence before the Appellate Authority under Section 15 of the Act and such authority had set aside that order by recording a finding that the dealer is entitled for protection available to him under Section 30(3) of the Act, as he sold the misbranded insecticide in the sealed container in which he acquired it and he stored the same in proper condition and cannot be presumed to know that the contents of the insecticide were misbranded. In that situation, the criminal complaint filed against such dealer by the Insecticide Inspector is liable to be quashed. As after recording the aforesaid finding by the Appellate Authority, the complaint filed against such dealer cannot be proceeded further as it will amount to misuse of the judicial process. Once the Appellate Authority under the same Act has accepted the defence available to the dealer, in the proceedings pertaining to the cancellation of his licence and a finding to that effect has been recorded, then the defence available to the dealer in the criminal prosecution cannot be deferred till the final conclusion of the trial. In such situation, whether the defence has been established before the Appellate Authority under Section 15 of the Act, criminal complaint filed against the dealer is liable to be quashed by the High Court in exercise of powers conferred upon it under Section 482 of the Code as the continuation of the proceedings, after the recording of such finding by the Appellate Authority, will be abuse of process of law". Reliance has also been placed upon the observations made by the Apex Court in M/s. Kisan Beej Bhandar, Abohar v. Chief Agricultural Officer, Ferozepur and another, 1990 SCC (Crl.) 623. 6. Reliance has also been placed upon the observations made by the Apex Court in M/s. Kisan Beej Bhandar, Abohar v. Chief Agricultural Officer, Ferozepur and another, 1990 SCC (Crl.) 623. 6. In view of the aforementioned discussion and having regard to the fact that the petitioner firm has already been exonerated of the charges by the Appellate Authority after holding that no fault whatsoever was attributable to it as it was found selling the sealed product, this petition is allowed. The impugned criminal complaint (Annexure P-1) as well as the summoning order passed therein, so far as the same pertain to the petitioners, are hereby quashed. It is, however, made clear that the observations made herein above and/or necessary consequences, shall have no bearing on the fate of the impugned criminal complaint and its future proceedings so far as the same pertain to the manufacturer, i.e., M/s. Safex Chemicals (India) Limited. Disposed of. Petition allowed.