Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: insecticides act 1968 section 16 central insecticides laboratory Page 1 of about 1,685 results (1.268 seconds)

Hyderabad Beverages Private Limited Etc. Vs. State of A.P.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2006CriLJ3988

..... referred to as pfa act), the seeds act and the insecticides act. it is therefore convenient to refer to the relevant statutory provisions, the rules and the judgments under each of these enactments separately.prevention of food adulteration act14. section 2(ia) of the prevention of food adulteration act, 1954 defines 'adulterated' to mean:(ia) 'adulterated'-an article of food shall be ..... in babulal hargovindas 1971 cri lj 1075, sukhmal gupta v. corporation of calcutta judgment of the supreme court in cri. appeal no. 161 of 1966 dated 3.5.1968 and ajit prasad ram kishan singh 1972 cri lj 1026, the earlier judgment in ghisa ram 1967 cri lj 939 was held inapplicable where the accused never applied to ..... the summons was served as to be incapable of being analysed. in sukhmal gupta v. corporation of calcutta cri. a. no. 161 of 1966 decided on may 3rd 1968, sikri. j., as he then was, speaking for the court said:.it was held by this court in municipal corporation of delhi v. ghisa ram 1967 cri lj .....

G.S. Prasad and ors. Vs. State Represented by the Assistant Director o ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2002(1)ALD(Cri)314; 2002(1)ALT(Cri)231

..... . 'it is under those circumstances, the supreme court came to the conclusion that the accused therein were deprived of their valuable right to have the sample tested from the central insecticides laboratory under sub-section (4) of section 24 of the insecticides act, 1968.the supreme court further took note of the fact that the accused in the said case notified to the ..... to the accused and the prosecution launched based upon such reports, which are hit by the rule, would get vitiated. the supreme court while interpreting section 24 of the insecticides act, 1968 which is in pari materia to rule 21 (3) of the seeds rules, 1968 observed:'then in order to safeguard the right of the accused to have the sample tested from the central .....

Shivkumar Alias Shiwalamal Narumal Chugwani Proprietor of Kanhaiya Gen ...

Court : Mumbai

..... be found in other enactments, which frustrates the smooth implementation of these enactments.the insecticides act, 1968(d) section 29 of the insecticides act reads thus:offences and punishment. (1) whoever (a) imports, manufactures, sells, stocks or exhibits for sale or distributes any insecticide deemed to be misbranded under subclause (i) or subclause (iii) or subclause ..... me in implementing the penal provisions of (i) the insecticides act, 1968 and (ii) the drugs and cosmetics act 1940 besides pointing out the changes required in these laws due to change in social order.the seeds act, 1966(a) section 19 of the seeds act reads as under:penalty - if any person (a) ..... in the offences taking place in relation to prevention of food adulteration act 1954, the seeds act 1966, the insecticides act 1968 and the drugs and cosmetics act 966 and in the instant cases in relation to prevention of food adulteration act and having found pitiable condition in relation to the misconceptions, knowledge and .....

Hindustan Palvarising Mills and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : RLW2003(1)Raj423; 2002(3)WLC198; 2002(3)WLN681

..... the petitioners, who are manufacturers with the prayer that the proceedings of state v. kumawat krishi sewa kendra and ors., for the offence punishable under section 29(1)(a) of the insecticides act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act of 1968') pending in the court of chief judicial magistrate, bhilwara be quashed.2. it arises in the following circumstances :-on 16.8.1996, a complaint ..... by the insecticide analyst, the dates of manufacture of the article and the expiry date are mentioned. it means the expiry date of sample is very much material in deciding such type of matters.11. section 30 of the act of 1968 provides for defences which may or may not be allowed in prosecution under the act of 1968. section 30(1) of the act of 1968 only prescribes .....

U.S. Madan and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 2002CriLJ408; 2002(2)WLN243

..... manufacturers with the prayer that the proceedings of criminal case no. 160/83 state v. kishan beej bhandar for the offence under section 17(1)(a) punishable under section 29(1)(a) of the insecticides act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act of 1968') pending in the court of addl. chief judicial magistrate, sangaria be quashed.2-3. it arises in the following circumstances :--on 14 ..... .c.for the reasons stated above, this petition filed by the petitioners under section 482, cr. p.c. is allowed and the proceedings of criminal case no. 160/83 state v. kishan beej bhandar for the offence under section 17(1)(a) punishable under section 29(1))(a) of the insecticides act, 1968 pending in the court of addl. chief judicial magistrate, sangaria, so far as .....

Present: Mr. Anurag Chopra Advocate Vs. State of Haryana

Court : Punjab and Haryana

..... filed for quashing complaint no.669/2 dated 09.08.2008 (annexure p-7) under sections 3(k)(i) 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the insecticide act, 1968 read with rule 27(5) of insecticide rules, 1971 (to be referred in short as 'the act') alongwith summoning order dated 09.08.2008 (annexure p-8).i have heard learned ..... .2008 for various offences falling under the insecticide act, 1968 and order (annexure p-8) summoning the petitioner and others as accused, for 29.10.2008. learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that petitioner moved an application dated 15.02.2008 (annexure p-3) under section 24(4) of the act before chief judicial magistrate within the prescribed ..... judicial magistrate was, thus, set aside. it was directed that the application filed by the petitioner be entertained and sample be sent for retesting under section 24 (4) of insecticide act. the above order of this court should have put the jitender kumar 2013.08.03 15:29 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this .....

Gupta Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 2002(2)ALD(Cri)571; JT2002(Suppl1)SC516; 2002(5)WLN776

..... court against the company and its managing director and directors, alleging commission of offence punishable under section 29(1)(a) of the insecticides act, 1968. by then the shelf-life of the insecticides in question had expired. section 29 provides that whoever imports, manufactures, sells, stocks, or exhibits for sale, or distributes any insecticides deemed to be misbranded under sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (iii) of ..... section 3(k), shall be punishable in the manner prescribed under the section.5. the appellants filed the application .....

Northern Minerals Limited Vs. Plant Protection Officer and anr.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 2008(105)DRJ159

..... april, 1991 itself, the shelf life of the product ultimately expired in july, 1991; and for that reason, petitioner's right granted to him under section 24 of the insecticides act, 1968 was rendered illusory. 8. in reply, counsel for the state has stated that although admittedly, the application for reanalysis was moved by the petitioner on 11th ..... 1990 itself. according to the counsel for the petitioner, this request for reanalysis was made well within the period of 28 days as prescribed under section 24(3) of the insecticides act, 1968. in addition, it is also contended that on the very first appearance before the court on 11th march, 1991, an application was moved by the ..... a futile exercise and an abuse on the process of the court. consequently, complaint no. 30/01/91 dated 19.01.1991 under section 200 cr.pc read with section 29(1)(a) of the insecticides act, 1968 and the prosecution launched against the petitioner in that behalf, are quashed.15. the petition is disposed of.crl. m.a. no .....

Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of H.P. and Another

Court : Himachal Pradesh

Reported in : 2012CrLJ2330

..... the time, the accused was summoned to appear on 6.4.1995, they had lost their right of getting the sample re-analysed from the central insecticides laboratory under sub-section (4) of section 24 of the insecticides act, 1968. in these circumstances making them stand trial would be an abuse of the process of the court. the contention of the state was that shelf life ..... of the sample was not relevant as insecticides act, 1968 does not prescribe any expiry date. the supreme court rejected the contention and it has been held that if expiry .....

Marico Ltd and Ors Vs. State of Delhi and Anr

Court : Delhi

..... a subsequent decision rendered in northern mineral limited v. union of india air2010sc2829 the supreme court, while dealing with section 24(3) of the insecticides act, 1968, which is in pari materia with s.25(3) of the drugs and cosmetics act, proceeded to discharge the appellant on the premise that no step could be taken for analysis of the sample ..... by central insecticides laboratory due to sheer inaction on the part of the authorities concerned resulting in expiry of ..... fact that the accused had notified its intention to adduce evidence in controversion of the report of insecticide analyst.11. adverting to the facts of the case, it may be observed that the notice under section 13(2) of the act along with the copy of the report of the public analyst was forwarded to the petitioner .....