JUDGMENT Mrs. Sabina, J.:- Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of criminal complaint (Annexure P-2) under Section 3 (k) (i) 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (the Act for short) read with Rule 27 (5) of the Rules, 1971 and all the consequent proceedings arising therefrom. 2. Case of the complainant, in brief, is that on 28.7.1999 the premises of petitioner was checked. During checking, complainant found 24x5 litres of Monocroptophos 36% SL. lying in the stock. Complainant selected one five litres pack bearing batch No. 087AP70 having manufacturing date 4/99 and expiry date 9/2000, manufactured and supplied by M/s Anu Products Limited, Arya Samaj Chowk, Bathinda. Complainant purchased 750 ml. Monocroptophos 36% SL. from five litre plastic pack. Three samples were drawn and one sample was sent for analysis to the Senior Analyst, Insecticides Testing Laboratory, Bathinda. As per the test report of the sample, the same was declared mis-branded with the remarks ‘the sample does not conform to IS-specifications with respect to its percent active ingredient content’. The active ingredient content was only 29.38% instead of 36% SL. Hence, the complaint was filed against the petitioner and its partners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner could not be held liable if the sample was not found according to specification as the petitioner was merely a dealer of the insecticide. The insecticide had been manufactured by M/s Anu Products Limited. The insecticide was being sold by the petitioner in sealed packets in original form. 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. A perusal of the complaint itself reveals that the insecticide had been stored properly by the petitioner. Thus, the insecticide had remained in the same state as and when it had been acquired by the petitioner. 4. Section 30 (3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 reads as under :- “30. A perusal of the complaint itself reveals that the insecticide had been stored properly by the petitioner. Thus, the insecticide had remained in the same state as and when it had been acquired by the petitioner. 4. Section 30 (3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 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.” 5. A perusal of Section 30(3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 shows that the petitioner is 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 the dealer or distributor in case the insecticide has not been stored properly. 6. Admittedly, in the present case, a perusal of the report of the Public Analyst (Annexure P-1) reveals that the loose sample was drawn from the original packing. This shows that the original packing had not been tampered with by the petitioner. 7. Hon’ble the Supreme Court, in the case of M/s Kisan Beej Bhandar, Abohar vs. 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 subsection (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. Appellant’s 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 subsection (3). Appellant’s 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 subsection (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 sub-section (3). In the facts once the appellant’s contention that it was a sealed tin intact has been found, the burden that lay on him under the provisions of subsection (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.” 8. This Court, in the case of M/s Guru Nanak Pesticides, Nabha & Ors. vs. State of Punjab reported as 2010 (1) RCR (Criminal) 30, held as under :- “6. Petitioner No.1 is the stockist; petitioners No.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. 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. 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 Ropar, 2008 (1) RCR (Criminal) 998, wherein also this Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the licensed dealer.” 9. Admittedly, the petitioner is not the manufacturer of the insecticide but is selling the same. Hence, the petitioner cannot be held responsible if the sample was not found to be upto the standard by the analyst. The petitioner was merely involved in sale of the insecticide. The complaint was also filed against the manufacturer. From the complaint, it cannot be said that the insecticide had not been stored properly by the petitioner. The samples were drawn by the Inspector from the original packing. In appeal vide Annexure P-3 licence of the petitioner was restored in view of Section 30 (3) of the Act. 10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Criminal complaint (Annexure P-2) under Section 3 (k) (i) 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 read with Rule 27 (5) of the Rules, 1971 and all the consequent proceedings arising therefrom, qua the petitioner, are quashed. --------------------