Advanced Search Results

Prabhakar Tulshiramji Mankar and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Insecticides Act, 1968 - Sections 17, 18 and 30(3); Insecticides Rules, 1971 - Rule 10

Reported in : 2005(2)ALLMR34; 2005(2)BomCR268; 2005(1)MhLj228

by the authorities in right perspective.10. The learned counsel for the petitioners, placing reliance on sub-section (3) of Section 30 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, submitted that a person not being an importer or a manufacturer of an … of Insecticides holding licence Nos. AMT/203, AMT/283, AMT/320, AMT/336 and AMT/66 respectively issued under Section 13 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 read with Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Rules framed thereunder. On 29th August, 1990, the petitioners

Present: Mr.Arun Chandra Advocate Vs. Stae of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Subject : Land Acquisition

the insecticide had remained in the same state as and when it had been acquired by the petitioner. Section 30 (3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 reads as under :- “30. Defences which may or may not be … 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

Kisan Beej Bhandar, Abohar Vs. Chief Agricultural Officers, Ferozepur ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Commercial

Acts : Insecticides Act, 1968 - Sections 30(3)

Reported in : 1990Supp(1)SCC111

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 licence … recovered from the shop the seal had not been tampered with. According to him the protection available under Section 30(3) of the Act was available to him and he was not responsible for the misbranding.4. The High Court

Ravi Parkash S/O Shri Gian Chand and anr. Vs. State of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Subject : CriminalFood Adulteration

Acts : Insecticides Act, 1968 - Sections 3, 7, 13, 17, 18, 23, 29, 30, 30(1), 30(3), 30(8) and 33; Insecticides Rules, 1971 - Rule 27(5); Prevention of Food Adulteration Act

Reported in : 1991CriLJ2538

the decision of the Division Bench of this Court partaining to the cancellation of the licence under the Insecticides Act, 1968, in the last paragraph of the judgment had observed as under :--'The High Court took the view that … nor the distributor nor the manufacturer of the said insecticides and thus the provisions of Sub-section (8) of Section 30 of the Act are applicable in his case and fully exonerate him. Shri S.K. Sheshadari Chairman and Managing

Bahadur Singh and anr. Vs. State of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Insecticide Act, 1968 - Sections 3K(1), 17, 18, 24, 30(3) and 33;

Reported in : 1998CriLJ3546

in the insecticide contained in the original packing.7. Secondly, the form XII which gives the details of the insecticides seized shows that the shelf life expired in July 1994, whereas the complaint was filed on 1121994, that … that they tampered with the same. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the protection of Sub-section 3 of Section 30 of the Insecticide Act. The petitioners have alleged in the petition that they have not tampered with the

State of Punjab and ors. Vs. Dharam Pal and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Civil

Reported in : (1998)8SCC497

authorised distributor/manufacturer and had not been tampered with and as such, the provisions of Sections 30(3) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 were attracted. It is thus obvious that before the provisions of Section 30(3) are attracted, the conditions laid

Wadhawa Beej Bhandar and ors. Vs. State of Haryana

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Insecticides Act, 1968 - Sections 3, 17(1), 21(1), 24(2), 29(1) and 30(3); Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 482; Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227

Reported in : 1998CriLJ1374

prayed that complaint annexure P/1 filed under Sections 29(1)(a) read with Section 3(k)(1) and Section 17(1)(a) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 be quashed qua them so as to put a-stop to the abuse of the process of Court.2. It … (Dealer) nor M/s. Pawan & Co. (Distributor) of this insecticide is liable, in view of provisions of Section 30(3) of the Insecticides Act, as when the sample is taken from a sealed packing manufactured by manufacturer and

A.K. Chauhan Vs. State of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Insecticides Act, 1968 - Sections 3, 9, 17, 18, 29, 30 and 33; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 155(2), 156(1) and 482; Insecticides Rules, 1971 - Rule 10; Constitution of India - Article 226

Reported in : 2001CriLJ4611

A.K. Chauhan, Chemist of Delta Insecticides Ltd. under Sections 3(k)(i), 9, 17, 18,29, 30, 3(c) and 33 of Insecticides Act, 1968 and Rule 10 of Insecticides Rules, 1971.2. On 2.7.1993 the business premises of M/s Garg Trading Co., Bareta … was he who manufactured misbranded Anilophos 30% EC which contained ingredient 24.91 % instead of 30%. As per Section 30 of the Insecticides Act, he was responsible for the quality of the insecticides which was manufactured by the

Godrej Agrovet Ltd. Vs. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Court : Mumbai Aurangabad

Subject : Land Acquisition

JMFC Badnapur. The case is filed by respondent no.2, public servant for offences punishable under various Sections of Insecticides Act, 1968 and Rules framed under the Act. Both sides are heard. 2] Copy of the complaint given by public … penalty imposed to be published in such newspapers or in such other manner as the Court may direct. Section 30 : Defence which may or may not be allowed in prosecution under this Act - (1) ...... (2).......

Kissan Brothers Faridkot Vs. State of Punjab and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Insecticides Act, 1968 - Sections 3, 15, 17, 18. 29, 30(3) and 33; Insecticides Rules, 1971 - Rule 27(5)

Reported in : 2001CriLJ234

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, … 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