1. Special leave is granted


2. Challenge in this appeal is as to the rejection of the appellant's writ petition by the High Court Where he had disputed the cancellation of his licence granted under the Insecticides Act, 1968


3. The short facts which are no more in dispute are these : The appellant had a dealer's license under the Act to deal in insecticides. The Chief Agricultural Officer, Ferozepur, cancelled this licence by order dated July 15, 1982, on the finding that the appellant was in possession of misbranded insecticides and had kept the same for sale and thus one of the conditions the licence had been violated and such violation authorised cancellation of the licence. The Public Analyst made a report that the stock contained in the tin was misbranded inasmuch as against the requirement of 25 per cent of WW, the the Oxydemston Methyl content was 27. 6 per cent. The appellant had taken the stand before the authority and the High Court that he had purchased a full tin from the authorised distributor and the tin bad indication on it that the contents were within the prescribed limit of 25 per sent. When the tin was recovered from the shop the seal had not been tampered with. According to him the protection available under Section 30 (3) of Act was available to him and he was not responsible for the misbranding


4. 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 area 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 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. 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 sub-section (3) had been satisfactorily discharges, ev

en 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 a disposed of accordingly. No costs.