Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: insecticides act 1968 section 26 notification of poisoning Court: chennai Page 1 of about 158 results (0.076 seconds)

Bharat Pulverising Mills Limited Madras Vs. the Joint Director of Agri ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1993Mad74; (1992)IIMLJ511

..... insecticides act, 1968 is enacted to regulate the import, manufacture, sale, transport, distribution and use of insecticide with a view to prevent risk to human beings or animals, and for matters connected therewith. in order to appredate the contentions of both parties, it is necessary to extract the relevant provisions of the act. section 3(e) of the act ..... 12-90 to 25-12-1990. against this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the appellate authority, who is the director of agriculture, under the insecticides act, 1968 and the appellate authority upheld the order of the original authority. hence the petitioner is before the court challenging the order of suspension passed by the appellate ..... article must be deemed to be 'misbranded'. it is also alleged in the affidavit that under s. 3(k)(i) of the insecticides act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the act) will not apply to a case where the actual quantity found in the container is less than the quantity declared on the label. it .....

M/S. Dpb Antibiotics Vs. Cc, Chennai

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

..... committee (cibandrc). the original authority had confiscated the consignment under import under section 111 (d) of the act as the importer did not possess a valid license required for import of goods falling under csh 2905.5900 and as the importer had not registered with the cibandrc as required under insecticides act, 1968. the impugned order has upheld the order of the original authority. 2 ..... . we find that there is no dispute that the goods under import are being used as a preservative by the importer who is engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products. we find that as per section 38 of the insecticide act, provisions requiring registration with the .....

S. Rajasekar and Others Vs. S. Thirugnana Sambandam and Another

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 1995(1)ALT(Cri)433; 1994CriLJ3583

..... four petitioners are a. 1 to a. 3. they are being proceeded with for violation of s. 3(k)(1) of the insecticides act, 1968 on the allegation that a. 1 is the firm which manufactured and distributed the misbranded insecticide and a. 2 and a. 3 are the chairman and chief lab chemist of a. 1 and a. 4 is the dealer who ..... are doing business under the name and style of m/s. bayer india limited. the sample of the said insecticide in 100 ml. packing was taken from a. 1 shop in his presence, in accordance with the provisions of section 22 of the act. on analysis, it was found to be misbranded. a. 1 was intimated of the report of the analyst by ..... . 2. short facts are : in s.t.c. 1148/90, the first respondent has filed the complaint against four accused for offences punishable under sections 29(1) read with 3(k)(i) and 33(1) of the insecticides act. the relevant allegations in it are briefly as follows :- a. 1 is the retail dealer of pesticides. a. 2 is the state distributor for .....

Bharat Pulverising Mills Ltd. Vs. the Joint Director of Agriculture (i ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1992)2MLJ511

..... in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the insecticides act, 1968 (central act no. 46 of 1968) is intended to prevent risk to human beings in the use of insecticides and if the contents of the container is defective in quality, it will come under section 3(k)(i) of the insecticides act, 1968 stating that the article must be deemed to be 'misbranded'. it is ..... also alleged in the affidavit that under section 3(k)(i) of the insecticides act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') will not apply to a case where the actual quantity found in the .....

Joint Director of Agriculture (inputs) Directorate of Agriculture, Che ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 1996CriLJ530

..... challenge urged on behalf of the respondents. the preamble to the insecticides act, 1968, reads that it was enacted by the parliament, as an act to regulate the import, manufacture, sale, transport, distribution and use of insecticides with a view to prevent risk to human beings or animals and for matters connected therewith.' 9. section 3(k) in so far as it is relevant for our ..... accordance with law. 6. the learned single judge was of the view that the insecticides act, 1968 was enacted to regulate the import, manufacture, sale, transport, distribution and use of insecticides with a view to prevent risk to human beings or animals and for matters connected therewith and that a combined reading of sec. 3(e), 3(k) 14, 19, 20 and 24 of the .....

Shri.M.K.Dhanuka, and anr. Vs.Government of India Rep. by Dr.Suresh Ch ...

Court : Chennai

..... company, it is not going to affect the prosecution as against the second accused and dismissed the quash petition.12. a reading of section 33 (1) of insecticide act 1968 would disclose that every person, who at the time of commission of offence, was in charge of, or was responsible to the company ..... conform to the indian standard specification in respect of its active ingredients contents. consequently, the complaint was filed under section 3(k)(i) of the insecticides act, 1968 and also under rule 27(5) of the insecticides rules, 1971. before the punjab and haryana high court, three submissions were made on behalf of the petitioner/ ..... filed the above said complaint under section 27(5) of the insecticides rules 1971 seeking prosecution of the petitioners and other accused for the alleged violation of section 3(k)(i) of the insecticides act 1968. as per the complaint, the insecticide inspector, who has been notified under section 20 of the insecticides act 1968, was directed to draw four .....

Yogesh Dutt Vs. The State of Tamilnadu through Thiru S. Krishnamoorthy ...

Court : Chennai Madurai

..... on 21.08.2007, the complainant inspected the shop of the 4th accused, who is a retailer and took samples of an insecticide in terms of section 22 of the insecticides act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the act, 1968) and sent one sample to the pesticide testing laboratory, madurai for analysis. the test report dated 17.09.2007 declared the ..... on 08.01.2008 and by reply dated 24.01.2008, repudiated the test report and prayed for re-analysis in terms of section 24 (3) of the act, 1968 by central insecticides laboratory, faridabad. under such circumstances, the prosecution should have been launched by the complainant before 01.11.2008 that is before the ..... 2008, he expressed his intention in no uncertain terms to adduce evidence to contradict the test report in terms of section 24(3) of the act, 1968, by getting the referee sample reanalysed by the central insecticides laboratory, faridabad. iii) admittedly, the complainant obtained sanction on 19.09.2008 and filed the complaint on 02.01 .....

In Re: Muthiah and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1966)2MLJ42

..... impure or adulterated food believed to be pure and not adulterated.3. sales of misbranded articles in violation of the federal food and drugs act and insecticide act.4. violations of state and federal narcotic acts.5. criminal nuisances, including business not known to be injurious to the public health, repose or comfort, and unknown obstructions of highways.6 ..... the petitioners relied on the decision in sherras v. de rutzen l.r. (1895) 1 q..b. 918 where it was held that section 16, sub-section (2) of the licensing act,. 1872, which prohibits a licensed victualler from supplying liquor to a police constable while on duty, does not apply where the licensed victualler bona fide ..... should be for human consumption or use. in public prosecutor v. palanisami : air1965mad98 ramakrishnan, j., has pointed out that the definition of sale in section 2(xiii) of the act is very wide and covers not merely a sale for human consumption, but a sale for analysis as in this case, exposing for sale, or having .....

Senthil Agro Products, rep by its Manager, S. Sivamurugan Vs. S. Renuk ...

Court : Chennai Madurai

..... visited senthil agro products distributor/dealer, no.1/5049/1, rosalpatti, virudhunagar (a3/1st petitioner herein) and took samples of certain insecticides in terms of section 22(5) of the insecticides act, 1968 (in short the act, 1968), which, when analyzed, were found to be misbranded and was of substandard quality. the assistant director of agriculture, paramathi issued a ..... 8. learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that a copy of the test report was not furnished to the accused as required under section 24(2) of the act, 1968 and therefore, the valuable right of the petitioners to have the samples re-tested has been denied to the accused. 9. it is seen ..... they have not given their explanation, a complaint has been lodged against four persons, including the petitioners herein for offences under sections 3(k)(1) and 29(1)(a) of the act, 1968. 4. learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that senthil agro products is a proprietorship concern and that the proprietor has not .....

M.V. Arunachalam Vs. T. Karthikeyan

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 1992CriLJ2036

..... (plant protection) in charge; took the sample of endosulphan 35% ec 250 ml. container from the business premises of accused 2 as per the insecticides act, 1968 (act no. 46 of 1968 - for short 'the act'). one such sample so taken was sent to the assistant agricultural chemist (pesticide testing laboratory), madurai. after analysis, the sample wad declared as ' ..... his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. (2) notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where an offence under this act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or ..... other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. explanation - for the purpose of this section, - (a) 'company' means anybody corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and (b) 'director', in relation to a firm, means a .....