Daya Chaudhary, J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of complaint No. 47 dated 01.05.2010 under Sections 3(k)(i) 17, 18, 29 and 33 of Insecticides Act, 1986 read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971 and also the proceedings arising therefrom. Briefly, the facts of the case as mentioned in the petition are that petitioner No. 1 is dealer and obtained licence for selling, stocking, exhibiting for sale of different types of Insecticides Pesticides. Petitioner No. 2 is proprietor of petitioner No. 1-firm whereas petitioner No. 3 is distributor and petitioner No. 4 is proprietor of petitioner No. 3. The shop of petitioner No. 1 was inspected on 28.12.2006 by Inspector Gurbaj Singh and found 160 gm x 2 piroxofop-Propanyl 15% wp brand and drew the sample of Piroxofop-Propanyl 15% wp brand by selecting 160 gm bearing Batch No. KT 033 manufacturing date Dec, 05. The expiry date was recorded November 2007 and the same was manufactured by M/s B.R. Agrotech, New Delhi and supplied by M/s Atul Ltd. Agro Chemical Division, Valsaad Gujrat. Out of total stock, a sample of 16 gms was drawn and after dividing into three parts, one part of the sample was given to petitioner and two were kept by the Insecticide Inspector. One part of the sample was sent to Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Amritsar, which was found to be misbranded. On the basis of said report, a complaint was made on 01.05.2010 before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga and the petitioner and other accused were summoned.

2. The complaint as well as summoning order has been challenged in the present petition by raising various grounds. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the procedure and manner of taking sample is mandatory in nature but the same has not been followed by Insecticide Inspector. The sample was taken from the dealer in original packing and petitioners should not have been proceeded under Section 30(3) of the Insecticides Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners were selling insecticides in sealed containers in the original form as obtained from the registered manufacturer and no prosecution could be launched against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that there is no allegation in the complaint that sample was not stored in the proper state and it was not in the sealed container. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that it has been held in various judgments that when a sample is drawn from the original packing, the dealer and distributor cannot be held liable for misbranded pesticides as liability is of manufacturer only. The delay in sending sample is also fatal to the prosecution as in the present case, the sample was drawn on 28.12.2006 and it was found misbranded on 30.01.2007 and the complaint was filed on 01.05.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the maximum punishment of the present offence is only two years and the complaint was lodged after a delay of more than three years and the same is barred by limitation as per provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Sanjay Kumar, 1998 (3) RCR (Crl) 846 as well as judgment of this Court in M/s Anand Trading Co. and another v. State of Punjab, 2010 (3) RCR (Crl) 662.

3. Learned State counsel has not disputed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. Admittedly, the petitioners are not manufacturer as petitioner No. 1 is dealer, petitioner No. 2 is proprietor of petitioner No. 1-firm, petitioner No. 3 is distributor and petitioner No. 4 is proprietor of petitioner No. 3. It is an admitted fact that the sample was drawn from the sealed container and date of expiry was also mentioned. It is also an admitted fact that the sample was drawn on 28.12.2006, which was found misbranded on 30.01.2007 and presen