Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: insecticides act 1968 section 26 notification of poisoning Court: punjab and haryana Page 1 of about 110 results (0.045 seconds)

Northern Minerals Ltd. and anr. Vs. State of Haryana

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (1997)115PLR722

..... quality and that permission be obtained from the court so that the sample could be sent for re-analysis in accordance with the provisions of section 24 (3) and (4) of the insecticides act, 1968 and the rules made thereunder. petitioner no. 2 made an application annexure p-7 dated 26.9.1991 to the ilaqa magistrate, jagadhri ..... 1991 in the court of judicial magistrate, jagadhri under section 29 of the insecticides act, 1968 and the rules made thereunder for the violation of section 3(k)(i) of the insecticides act, 1968, urging that they have been deprived of their valuable right granted to them under section 24(3) of the insecticides act for no fault on their part and therefore the ..... be paid by the complainant or the accused, as the court shall direct.'6. it is clear from the bare reading of the provisions of section 24 of the insecticides act, 1968 that right given for re-analysis of the sample is a valuable right which cannot be taken away by the prosecution. if this guarantee to the .....

Hindustan Pulverising Mills Vs. State of Haryana

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : [1995]83CompCas75(P& H)

..... production in charge, to represent the company, hindustan pulverising mills, delhi, which is an accused in criminal complaint no. 1392 of 1993 for an offence under section 29 of the insecticides act, 1968. the sub-divisional agriculture officer, jagadhri, filed a complaint against three accused, namely hindustan pulverising mills, azadpur, delhi, shri d. v. devrani, chief chemist ..... direction to the judicial magistrate 1st class, jagadhru to allow the company, the first accused, to be represented by mohinder singh chauhan. 3. under section 53 of the insecticides act, 1968, whenever an offence is committed by a company every person who at the time of commission of the offence was in charge of that company or ..... is filed, the learned magistrate shall consider that application and pass an appropriate order in the light of the provisions contained in section 33 of the insecticides act and also under section 305 of the code of criminal procedure. the petition is accordingly disposed of.

Sudarshan Chemical Industries Ltd. Vs. the State of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2003)135PLR89

..... rule 10 of the rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act and the rules').4. it is stated in the complaint that amarjit lal, agricultural ..... insecticides laboratory, faridabad, for analysis under cover of its letter dated 3.9,1996. by report dated 1.11.1996, the central insecticides laboratory, faridabad, declared the sample as misbranded. sanction for prosecution was obtained and a complaint was filed under sections 3k(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the insecticides act, 1968 and insecticides ..... to preventing risk to human being and animals. the dealer is under a legal obligation to supply the insecticides products as per the provisions of the insecticides act, 1968. the provisions of the insecticides act are designed to protect the entire population as the ill effect of pesticides pass on to the ultimate consumer .....

Narinder Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Haryana

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : 2007CriLJ4157

..... petitioner was summoned after the expiry of the shelf life of the sample, therefore, he has lost his valuable right under section 24(4) of the insecticides act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') of getting the samples of insecticides re-tested from the central insecticide laboratory.3. in this case, on 12-8-1994, a sample of phorat 10%g, which was manufactured by m ..... kumar gupta, who was the manager of m/s. somanil chemicals, the manufacturer of the misbranded insecticide, has filed this petition under section 482, cr. p.c. for quashing of the complaint filed against him under section 29(1)(a) and section 17(1)(a) of the insecticides act, 1968 and the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.2. in this petition, the contention of the petitioner is that .....

Dr. L.C. Rohella and anr. Vs. the State of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2003)133PLR195

..... sanction was required under the provisions of section 31 of the insecticide act, 1968 and the aforesaid provisions contained in section 31 were mandatory and no cognizance of the offences could have taken nor the trial in the case commenced. for the ..... it was found that there was variation in the active ingredients and, therefore, the aforesaid sample was declared as misbranded under the provisions of section 3(k)(i) of the insecticide act, 1968.3. sh. arun nehra, learned counsel for the petitioners has sought the quashing of the complaint on the ground that in fact prior ..... the complaint annexure p-4 pending in the court of chief judicial magistrate, jalandhar, which had been tiled under the provisions of section 33 of the insecticide act, 1968 read with rule 27(5) of insecticide rules, 1971. a copy of the aforesaid complaint has been attached as annexure p-4 with the present petition.2. petitioner no .....

Krishi Kainder Vs. State of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : 1998CriLJ351

..... 1. herein, the prayer is for quashing the complaint dated 2-2-1995 (ann. p.2), under sections 3(k)(1), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the insecticides act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act) read with rule 27(5) of the insecticide rules, 1971, as well as all the consequent proceedings arising thereof, now pending in the court of chief ..... the report of the testing laboratory and re-q nested for sending the sample for reanalysis to the central insecticide laboratory. however, without sending the sample for re-analysis to the central insecticide laboratory as provided under section 24(4) of the act the complaint was filed. it is further alleged that the petitioner has been deprived of its valuable right ..... (ann. p.2), dated 2-2-1995, i.e. much after the expiry of the shelf life of the insecticide and in this manner, the petitioner has been deprived of his valuable right under section 24 of the act and on this ground alone the complain i is liable to be quashed.6. on the other hand, the learned .....

Kissan Brothers Faridkot Vs. State of Punjab and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : 2001CriLJ234

..... was acquired or that the container or the seal thereof was found tampered with. 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, accepted that the petitioner is entitled to the protection under ..... chief agricultural officer, faridkot, is directed to proceed as per rules under the insecticides act. it appears that on the basis of the aforesaid observations, the present complaint has been filed under sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the insecticides act, 1968 read with rule 27(5) of the insecticides rules, 1971.2. in similar circumstances, this court quashed the proceedings in the .....

Jhajhan Lal Gupta, Director and anr. Vs. State of Haryana

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : 1997CriLJ190

..... s bansal radio and company, ellenabad, adcalerof the aforesaid insecticide being manufactured by petition no. 2 and purchased samples of the said insecticide having manufacturing date feb. 1989 and expiry date july, 1990, in accordance with the provisions of the insecticides act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the act). on being analysed the said sample was declared mis- ..... stated the sample was found to be misbranded and as such the complaint cannot be quashed. it has been further stated that the provisions of section 24 of the act have been complied with by the respondent and the complaint cannot be quashed on this ground as well.5. i have heard learned counsel for ..... manufacturer can get the sample re-tested before launching prosecution against him except in subsection (3) whereby he can challenge the report of the insecticide analyst only. section 24 of the act confers two rights i.e. the right to challege the correctness of the report of the analysis on the receipt of the show cause .....

Om Prakash Beej and Etc. Vs. State of Haryana

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : 1997CriLJ698

..... 1991 and expiry date was september, 1993, in accordance with the provisions of the insecticides act, 1968 (herein after referred to as the act) and the rules framed thereunder. on being analysed the sample was declared misbranded by the senior analyst quality control insecticides laboratory, karnal vide his report dated 13-7-92 (annexure p. 15) deputy director ..... judicial magistrate, hisar took cognizance and summoned the petitioners vide order (annexure p. 2) for 15-9-93.3. the petitioners have filed the present petition under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure to quash the complaint (annexure p. 1), the summoning order (annexure p. 2) and the subsequent proceedings thereon. ..... its own motion or in its discretion at the request either of the complainant or of the accused, cause the sample of the insecticide produced before the magistrate under sub-section (6) of section 22 to be sent for test or analysis to the said laboratory, which shall make the test or analysis and report in .....

Present: Mr. Sandeep Vermani Advocate Vs. State of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

..... - no.22217 of 2011) and criminal complaint no.280-2 dated 13.08.2008 (in criminal misc.-m no.23692 of 2011) filed under sections 3 (k) (i).17, 18 and 33 punishable under section 29 of insecticides act, 1968. as per the petitioner, he cannot be held vicariously liable because he had already resigned as director of the company by the time the incident ..... recording preliminary evidence of the complainant has summoned the petitioner to face trial. reference is made to the provisions of the insecticides act, 1968, whereby company has to appoint incharge and responsible person for the conduct of business under section 33 of the insecticides act. one sh. ramesh kulkarni son of sh. shrikrishna, factory manager was appointed as incharge and responsible person. this is on the .....