ORDER
S.S. Nijjar, J.
1. On 23-11-1998, Insecticide Inspector visited the premises of the petitioner and drew the sample of 150 proturon 75% W.P. from the sealed pack of 500 grams pack of weedecide manufactured and supplied by M/s. Rallies India Limited. The petitioner had not opened the seal of the container. There is no allegation in the complaint against the petitioner that the sample was not properly restored or it was not found in the same state as it was acquired or that the container or the seal thereof was found tampered with. Inspite of this, the sample was declared misbranded. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 15 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Joint Director (Plant protection), Punjab, Chandigarh, vide his order dated 10-5-1999, accepted that the petitioner is entitled to the protection under Section 30(3) of the Act. During the hearing of the appeal, Shri Harsangeet Singh, Agricultural Development Officer. Faridkot, appeared on behalf of the Chief Agricultural Officer, Faridkot. A specific question was put to him as to whether the seal was intact at the time of drawing the sample. He admitted that the seal was intact. After recording the aforesaid finding of fact, the Appellate Authority granted the protection of Section 30(3) of the Act to the petitioner and restored the license. However, in the order, it has been mentioned that the Chief Agricultural Officer, Faridkot, is directed to proceed as per rules under the Insecticides Act. It appears that on the basis of the aforesaid observations, the present complaint has been filed under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971.
2. In similar circumstances, this Court quashed the proceedings in the case of M/s. Bharat Pesticides v. State of Punjab, 1998(3) Recent Criminal Reports 189 on the ground that once it was found that the insecticide was acquired from the licensed manufacturer in sealed container and while in possession of the petitioner, the insecticide was properly stored and remained in the same condition when it was acquired, it would not be open to the respondents to file a complaint on the same set of facts. It was held that filing of complaint would be an abuse of process of the Court. The matter is, therefore, squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment.
3. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The proceedings pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot, on the basis of the complaint dated 13-9-1999, are hereby quashed. No costs.