Judgment Ajai Lamba, J. 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of complaint titled State of Punjab v. M/s. Kisan Seed Store and others, filed for commission of offence under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18 and 33 of the Insecticide Act, 1968 read with Rule 27 (5) of Insecticide Rules. 1971 punishable under Section 29(1) of Insecticide Act, 1968 . 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a licensee under Insecticide Act, 1968 to deal with various kinds of insecticides and pesticides of registered and approved manufacturers. It has further been clarified that the petitioner sells only sealed and packed insecticides/pesticides. A sample of insecticide that has been manufactured by a company approved by Government of India and Government of Punjab was drawn on 25.05.2001. The sample was drawn from originally sealed and packed container. In above regards, learned counsel has referred to para No. 3 of the petition which is extracted hereunder :"3. That as per complainant version on 25-05-2001, he drew a sample of one insecticide i.e. Metalyax 8% + Mancozeb 64% EC bearing Batch No. KG-09, Mfg. November, 2000 and Expiry October, 2002 out of two 500 gms. originally sealed and packed containers lying properly from the shop premises of the petitioner-firm as manufactured by M/s. Fungicide India Ltd. Jammu. The said manufacturing company i.e. M/s. Fungicide India Ltd. Jammu is the registered and authorized manufacturing company by Govt. of Punjab to sell its products in the State of Punjab. " 3. Learned counsel states that it is the admitted case of the respondents that sample was drawn from sealed and packed container. In this regard, learned counsel has referred to para No. 3 of the reply on merits which reads as under :- "3. That the contents of para No. 3 of the petition are matter of record." Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Atma Singh & Others v. State of Punjab, 2010 (2) RCR (Criminal) 276. 4 Learned counsel for the respondent is assisted by Mr. Raj Kumar, Agriculture and Development Officer. Sh. Raj Kumar admits that indeed the sample was drawn from a sealed and packed container. Learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to distinguish the judgment rendered in Atma Singhs case (supra). I have considered the issue. 5. 4 Learned counsel for the respondent is assisted by Mr. Raj Kumar, Agriculture and Development Officer. Sh. Raj Kumar admits that indeed the sample was drawn from a sealed and packed container. Learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to distinguish the judgment rendered in Atma Singhs case (supra). I have considered the issue. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has a license to sell insecticides and pesticides manufactured by companies approved by Government of India and Government of Punjab. It is further not in dispute that the sample that has been drawn has been manufactured by approved manufacturer. There is no material available on the file to indicate that the insecticide was stored in violation of Rules. It is also the admitted position that sample was drawn from originally sealed and packed containers. 6. In view of the above, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the petitioner who is merely selling the insecticide had no occasion to tamper with the contents of the container/insecticide. 7. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that continuance of proceedings against the petitioner would he abuse of process of law and abuse of process of Court. The petitioners being only involved in sale of insecticide, cannot be held responsible for the contents of the container from which the sample has been drawn. 8. The petition is accordingly allowed. 9. Complaint titled State of Punjab v. M/s. Kisan Seed Store and others, filed for commission of offence under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18 an 33 of the Insecticide Act, 1968 read with Rule 27 (5) of Insecticide Rules, 1971 punishable under Section 29(1) of Insecticide Act, 1968 and subsequent proceedings are hereby quashed.