Advanced Search Results

D.K. Jhaver Vs. State of Punjab and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 482; Insecticides Act, 1968 - Sections 33

Reported in : [1996]87CompCas236(P& H)

complaint annexed as annexure P-1 with this petition, 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, and for quashing consequent proceedings arising therefrom.2. Briefly stated, … petitioner was a director of the manufacturing concern, Tropical Agro Systems Pvt. Ltd., Madras, yet in terms of Section 33 of the Insecticides Act, it had to be asserted in the complaint qua him that the offence had

Paushak Ltd. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 482; Insecticides Act, 1968 - Sections 33(1) and 33(2)

Reported in : 1990CriLJ1879

prosecution should have been filed against the company represented by its Managing Director. (2) Section 33(1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 says that whenever an offence under the Act has been committed by a company, every person who at

Rallis India Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Insecticides Act, 1968 - Sections 29(1), 33, 33(2) and 33(3); Evidence Act - Sections 114; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 204, 319 and 482

Reported in : 1998CriLJ3593; 1998(3)WLC373; 1997WLC(Raj)UC682; 1998(1)WLN305

presumed that they were Incharge of the affairs of the company for the purpose of Sub-section (3) of Section 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 and in any case it may be presumed that the alleged offence was … Sahkari Samiti Ltd. and Ors. and alleged therein the commission of offence punishable Under Section 29(1)(ka) of the Insecticides Act, 1968. On the basis of that complaint, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by his order dated 22nd February '95

United Phospherus Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Insecticides Act, 1968 - Sections 24, 24(4), 29 and 33; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 258

Reported in : RLW2003(3)Raj1681; 2002(5)WLN59

criminal original No. 478/94 dated 19th October, 94 taking cognizance against the petitioners under Section 29 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (in short, 'the Act') hereinafter) and the present petitioners alongwith other accused were summoned. 2. Heard Mr. M.K. … Gayatri Devi moved an application under Section 258 Cr.P.C. to stop the proceedings against them for non-compliance of Section 33 of the Act. Relying on a decision of this Court in R.P. Gupta v. State (1), the learned

Hindustan Chemicals Industries Vs. State of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Subject : Company

Acts : Insecticides Act, 1968 - Sections 33

Reported in : [1997]88CompCas794(P& H)

maintainable against the company through Shri Balraj Kumar. In support of this submission, he drew my attention to Section 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, which reads as follows : '33. Offences by companies.--(1) Whenever an offence under … expired. In support of this submission, he drew my attention to the provisions of Section 24 of the Insecticides Act, 1968. Section 24 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, reads as follows : '24. Report of insecticide analyst.-(1) The insecticide analyst

Abhey Yograj Vs. State of Haryana and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Subject : CriminalCompany

Acts : Insecticides Act, 1968 - Sections 33; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 204 and 227

Reported in : 2004CriLJ2443

of the proceedings qua him and the process issued against him in complaint under Section 29(1) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the other consequential proceedings pending in the trial Court.2. The brief … of summoning of the petitioner. However, regarding the first ground, the trial Court observed as under :--'..... .Under Section 33 of the Act, where an offence has been committed by a company, every person who at the time

Narinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Subject : Company

Acts : Insecticides Act, 1968 - Sections 33

Reported in : 1998(2)ALT(Cri)6; [1998]92CompCas957(P& H)

contains only 27.87 per cent. Thus, the sample was confirmed to be misbranded under section 3(k)(i) of the Insecticides Act, 1968. 2. Punjab Beej Bhandar, Dharamkot, has committed an offence under sections 17/18/3(k)(i) and 33 of the Insecticides Act,

State of Nct of Delhi Vs. Rajiv Khurana

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

Acts : Insecticides Act, 1968 - Sections 33, 33(1), 33(2) 29; Negotiable Instruments Act (NI) - Section 141, 138

control is handled by Mr. Rajeev Khurana, Regional Technical Director."4. It is submitted that section 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 provides that:"33.Offences by companies.-(1)Whenever an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who

Kumar Assandas Vazirani and anr. Vs. Dr. Sunil Prakash Gupta and anr.

Court : Orissa

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Insecticides Act, 1968 - Sections 3, 24, 29 and 33; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 420

Reported in : 97(2004)CLT302; 2004CriLJ2214; 2004(I)OLR367

offences under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(k), 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968. Criminal Misc. Case No. 2731 of 1999 is directed against the order dated 13.1.1999 passed by the learned

B.B. Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Subject : Company

Acts : Insecticides Act, 1968 - Sections 33, 33(1) and 33(2)

Reported in : [1995]83CompCas596(P& H)

issued to the State of Haryana. Needless to say it contested the said petition. Section 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, deals with the eventualities where offences are committed by companies. The same runs as under :' (1) Whenever