Judgment Sabina, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing complaint No. 97/3 of 3.6.2005 under Sections 3k(1), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of Insecticides Rules 1968 read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules 1971 titled State v. M/s. Jindal Fertilizers and Chemicals and other pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Khanna and for quashing all the consequential proceedings arising out of the said complaint. 2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that petitioner No. 1 is the dealer, who has obtained licence for sale of different types of insecticides/pesticides including that of M/s. Coromandal Agrico Pvt. Ltd. Petitioner No. 2 is the proprietor of petitioner No. 1 firm. Petitioner No. 3 is the distributor and petition No. 4 is the proprietor of petitioner No. 3 M/s. Manro Machinery Corporation. The shop of petitioner No. 1 was inspected by complainant Ajit Singh, Insecticides Inspector, Khanna on 18.3.2003. Sample of Cartap Hydochloride 4% "Padan" was taken frorn 1 kg packing sealed container. The insecticide was having manufacturing date as April 2003 and expirty date as March 2005. Batch number of the insecticide was 0304031, manufactured by M/s. Coromandal Agrico Pvt. Ltd. and distributed by petitioner No. 3. The sample was sent to the Insecticide Testing Laboratory and was found to be misbranded. On the basis of the report, the present complaint dated 3.6.2005 was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Khanna. The petitioners along with other accused were order to be summoned by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Khanna. In pursuance to the summoning order, the petitioners have appeared before the trial Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners could not be held liable for any misbranding of the sample. The petitioners were dealers/distributors of the insecticide manufactured by M/s. Coromandal Agrico Pvt. Ltd. The insecticide was being sold by petition No. 1 in sealed containers in original form as obtained from the distributor, who had been supplied the insecticide by the manufacturer. The petitioner did not and could not have ascertained whether the insecticide in any way was being manufactured in contravention of any provision of the Act. The insecticide had been properly stored by the petitioners and had remained in the same state as and when they acquired it. The petitioner did not and could not have ascertained whether the insecticide in any way was being manufactured in contravention of any provision of the Act. The insecticide had been properly stored by the petitioners and had remained in the same state as and when they acquired it. There was no averment in the complaint that the insecticide had not been stored by the petitioners in the proper state. Section 30(3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 , (for short `the Act) reads as under :- "30. Defences which may or may not be allowed in prosecutions under this Act.- (3) A person not being an importer or a manufacturer of an insecticide or his agent for the distribution thereof, shall not be liable for a 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 provision 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. A perusal of Section 30(3) of the Act shows that the petitioners are entitled to the protection under the same, in case, the sample is taken from the sealed container and the seal had not been tampered with when the same was recovered from the shop. However, the protection would not be available to be the dealer or distributor in case the insecticide has not been stored property. 5. In reply filed by the State of Punjab, it has been admitted the petitioner No. 3 was holding insecticide licence bearing No. 132/79, which was valid up to 31.12.2004 when he had distributed the insecticides. Petitioner No. 1 was authorised to sell/stock/distribute insecticides of the manufacturing company M/s. Coromandal Agrico Pvt. Ltd. upto 31.12.2003. The licences had been issued to petitioners No. 2 and 4 being proprietors of the firm. Petitioner No. 1 was authorised to sell/stock/distribute insecticides of the manufacturing company M/s. Coromandal Agrico Pvt. Ltd. upto 31.12.2003. The licences had been issued to petitioners No. 2 and 4 being proprietors of the firm. In para 2 of the reply filed by the State, it has been stated as under :- "That in reply to the contents of para No. 2, it is submitted that the deponent had taken a sample of Cartap Hydrochloride 4% G (Padan 4G) from the petitioners shop on 18.8.2003 bearing batch No. 0304031 having manufacturing dater April 2003 and expiry date March 2005 from the stock of (28 X 1 Kg). Cartap Hydrochloride 4% G (Padan 4G) manufactured by M/s. Coromandal Agrico Pvt. Ltd. Sikanderabad (UP). That the Deponent had selected one sealed packed out of 28 X 1 kg. sealed packets bearing batch No. 0304031 manufacture by M/s. Coromandal Agrico Pvt. Ltd., Sikanderabad (U.P.). The despondent took this sample for quality check purposes under the provisions of the Insecticides Act, 1968 . It is submitted that the petitioner No. 1 had obtained this insecticide from the petitioner No. 3 firm vide Bill No. 1398 dated 30.7.2003. That the deponent had fully followed the procedure for taking this sample under the provisions of the Insecticides Act, 1968 on 18.8.2003". 6. Honble the Supreme Court, in the case of M/s. Kisan Beej Bhandar, Abohar v. Chief Agricultural Officers, Ferozepur and another reported as 1990 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 623, in para No. 4, held as under :- "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 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. 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 sub-section (3). In the facts once the 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." 7. This Court, in the case of M/s. Guru Nanak Pesticides, Nabha & Ors. v. State of Punjab reported as 2010(1) RCR (Criminal) 30, held as under :- "6. Petitioner No. 1 is the stockist; petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 are its partners while petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 are the distributor. They are not the manufacturer of the relevant insecticide. There is clear-cut plea in the petition that they were selling the insecticide in the sealed container in the original form as obtained from the manufacturer and the sample was also taken from the original packing. This plea has not been controverted by the State. Thus, there remains no controversy that the impugned sample was obtained from the sealed containers lying in the premises of the firm and there is no material to indicate that the insecticide was not properly stored. Thus, the petitioners being the stockist/dealer/distributor, involved in the sale of insecticides, cannot be held liable for misbranding of the insecticides and only the manufacturer would be liable. In this context reliance can be placed on the cases of M/s. Kisan Beej Bhandar, Abohar v. Chief Agricultural Officers, Ferozepur, 1990 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 623 and M/s. Vimal And Co. Grain Market, Mullanpur v. State of Punjab, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 56 (P&H), followed in the case of Deepak Sharma & Ors. In this context reliance can be placed on the cases of M/s. Kisan Beej Bhandar, Abohar v. Chief Agricultural Officers, Ferozepur, 1990 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 623 and M/s. Vimal And Co. Grain Market, Mullanpur v. State of Punjab, 2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 56 (P&H), followed in the case of Deepak Sharma & Ors. v. State of Punjab, 2002 (2) RCR (Criminal) 24 and reliance can be safely placed on the case of M/s Punjab Beej Bhandar Bela & Anr. v. State of Punjab through Insecticide Inspector Roper, 2008(1) RCR (Criminal) 998. Wherein also this Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the licensed dealer." 8. Admittedly, the petitioners are not the manufacturers of the insecticides but the dealer and the distributor. Hence, they cannot be held responsible for misbranding the insecticide, which was not manufactured by them. The petitioners were only involved in the sale of insecticide. The complaint qua manufacturers is pending. There is nothing on record to suggest that the insecticide had not been properly stored by the petitioners. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and complaint No. 97/3 3.6.2005 under Section 3d(1), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of INsecticides Act, 1968 read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules 1971 titled State v. M/s. Jindal Fertilizers and Chemicals and other pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Khanna and all the consequential proceedings arising out of the said complaint, qua the petitioners, are quashed.