MANISHA BATRA, J.

1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Code’), is for quashing of Complaint bearing No. COMA/14/2018, dated 26.02.2018, titled as State vs. M/s Bajaj Agro, Sirhind and others, filed under Sections 3k(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (for short ‘the Act, 1968) read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971 along with all the subsequent proceedings having emanated therefrom including order dated 15.03.2018 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib, whereby the petitioners had been summoned to face trial in the aforesaid complaint.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present petition are that the aforementioned complaint had been filed by the respondent-State against seven persons/firms, who were either dealer, supplier, distributor or manufacturer under the provisions of the Act, 1968. Petitioner No.1 is a licensed dealer firm engaged in sale of insecticides and pesticides, whereas petitioner No.2 is its proprietor. As per the allegations made in the impugned complaint, on 07.07.2012, the Insecticide Inspector visited the premises of the petitioner-firm and drew samples of Butachlor 50% EC from originally sealed and packed containers kept for sale. Upon analysis by the Insecticide Testing Laboratory, Amritsar, the sample was initially reported to be misbranded as the active ingredient was found to be 34.04% instead of 50%. Thereafter, on the request of the accused, the second sample was sent to the Central Insecticides Laboratory, Faridabad for re-analysis, wherein the active ingredient was found to be 52.86% as against the declared 50%. Subsequently, after issuance of show-cause notice and consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioners, the complaint came to be instituted against the petitioners and other accused alleging violation of Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968.

3. On presentation of the complaint and after considering the preliminary evidence led by the complainant, the learned Magistrate had summoned the petitioners and other co-accused to face the trial in the impugned complaint for commission of offences alleged therein. Aggrieved from the same, the petitioners have filed the present petition and vide order dated 30.05.2018, while issuing notice of motion, further proceedings before the learned trial Court were stayed by this Court.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that they are merely licensed dealers/sellers and not the manufacturers of the insecticide in question, which admittedly was purchased from a duly licensed manufacturing company in sealed and packed condition. It is argued that the sample was drawn from originally sealed containers and there is no allegation whatsoever that the petitioners had tampered with the contents or altered the product in any manner. Therefore, no criminal liability can be fastened upon the petitioners for any alleged manufacturing defect. It has further been argued that the complaint itself records that the insecticide was manufactured by the manufacturing company and the petitioners were only sellers thereof. Even as per the averments made in the complaint, the dealer-firm had purchased the product from the manufacturer and had stored the same properly in the condition in which it was acquired.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that the proceedings against the petitioners under the impugned co