Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: insecticides act 1968 section 26 notification of poisoning Court: punjab and haryana Page 5 of about 110 results (0.726 seconds)

A.K. Chauhan Vs. State of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : 2001CriLJ4611

..... conforming to the isi specifications with respect to its present active ingredient contained from which it was clear the anilophos 30% ec was misbranded under section 3(k)(i) of the insecticides act, 1968 as the sample contained only 24.91% active ingredient contents of anilophos instead of 30% ec. it was reported that in this manner the ..... who is holding trial to find out whether as chemist he was responsible for maintaining the quality of the insecticides manufactured by the company. section 33 of the insecticides act, 1968 reads as follows :-'(1) whenever an offence under this act has been committed by company, every person who at the time of offence was committed was in charge ..... m.i.e. bahadurgarh, distt. jhajjar through surinder kumar (n) 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 inspected .....

Ajay Handa Vs. the State of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : 1995CriLJ2002

..... .63%. in this way, you by keeping this insecticides at your shop and by selling this misbranded insecticide, have directly violated the provisions of section 3k(1) and 18(2), of the insecticides act, 1968 and have also violated the insecticides rules, so why not your licence for selling insecticides may be cancelled for your above action.you within ..... r-2 and r-3 respectively. after obtaining necessary consent under clause 31(1) of the insecticides act, 1968, this prosecution was launched against the petitioner and manufacturer according to written consent. a copy of written consent under section 31(1) is enclosed as r-2.4. it has been further stated that before launching ..... n.k. kapoor, j.1. petitioner seeks quashing of complaint under sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18 29 and 33 of the insecticides act, 1968 (for short 'the act') read with section/rule 27(5) of the insecticides rules, 1971, (for short 'the rules') and also for quashing all the consequent proceedings arising on the basis of the said .....

Sh. Hanuman Sharma Vs. State of Punjab and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : 1993CriLJ124

..... the dealer had received the product manfactured at the premises of the present petitioner. the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to sub-section (6) of section 22 of the insecticides act, 1968, which is reproduced as under:-'(6) the insecticide inspector shall restore one, portion of a sample so divided or one container, as the case may be, to the person from whom he ..... of the code of criminal procedure and challenged the summoning order passed against him in a complaint under sections 3(k), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the insecticide act 1968 read with rule 27(5) of the insecticide rules 1971. the main allegation in the complaint is that aldrin 30% e.c. is manufactured by m/s. agro chemicals, jaipur and when its sample .....

Dharam Paul S/O Sh. Amar Nath Vs. the State of Punjab Thr. Insecticide ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : 1991CriLJ120

..... filed against the present petitioner, and his other co-accused, under sections 17, 18(1)(c) 3(k) and 33 of the insecticides act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act').2. in brief, according to the allegations made in the impugned complaint, moved by the insecticide inspector, amritsar, m/s. modern kheti store, 52, hide market ..... , amritsar, deal with pesticide/ insecticides and are holding the licence for the purpose issued ..... the dealer himself cannot seek protection for contravention of the provisions of the act, as contemplated under sub-section (3) of section 30 of the act.14. i am further supported on this point from the definition of the 'dealer' given in insecticides (price, stock display and submission of reports) order, 1986, which, .....

M/S Hitech Pestmanagement (India) and Another Vs. State of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

..... .2009 titled 'state versus m/s hitech pestmanagement (india).ludhiana and others under section 3k(i).17, 18, 29 and 33 of the insecticides act, 1968 read with rule 27(5) of the insecticides rules 1971 punishable under section 2 (1) of the insecticides act, 1968 (annexure p-1) and all the consequential proceedings arising out of the said complaint ..... 3.2009 titled 'state versus m/s hitech pestmanagement (india).ludhiana and others under sections 3k(1).17, 18, 29 and 33 of the insecticides act, 1968 read with rule 27(5) of the insecticides rules 1971 punishable under section 2 (1) of the insecticides act, 1968 (annexure p-1) and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom. the case of the ..... that the sample had been drawn from the original packing. section 30(3) of the insecticides act, 1968, (for short 'the crm no.8672 of 2012 (o&m) 3 act') reads as under :- 30. defences which may or may not be allowed in prosecutions under this act.- (3) a person not being an importer or a .....

M/S Chandan Pesticides and Another Vs. State of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

..... position explained above, the present petition is allowed. the complaint no.235 dated 23.1.2013 under sections 29 read with section 3(k)(i).17, 18, 29 and 33 of the insecticides act, 1968 and rules 10 and 27 (5) of the insecticides rules 1971 as well as summoning order dated 23.1.2013 and subsequent proceedings arising therefrom qua the ..... punjab. daya chaudhary, j. the present petition has been filed under section 482 crpc for quashing of complaint no.235 dated 23.1.2013 under sections 29 read with section 3(k)(i).17, 18, 29 and 33 of the insecticides act, 1968 and rules 10 and 27 (5) of the insecticides rules 1971 as well as summoning order dated 23.1.2013. briefly ..... the facts of the case are that on 30.5.2009 insecticide inspector, shri harminder pal singh, inspected .....

Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Punjab and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : 2003CriLJ1158

..... the code of criminal procedure, 1973, seeks quashing, of a criminal complaint filed by the insecticides inspector. samrala (annexure p-5) on the ground that the right of the petitioner under section 24(4) of the insecticides act, 1968 (for brevity the act) to get the sample analysed from the central insecticides laboratory has been snatched and his defence is completely prejudiced.2. facts in brief are ..... that on july 25, 1995 the insecticides inspector took sample of cypermethrin 25% ec, which was found to be .....

Present:- Mr.Ravish Bansal Advocate Vs. State of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

..... insecticides rules, 1971 (for short the rules .)(annexure p-10).summoning order dated 19.12.1997 (annexure p-13) and proceedings ..... respondent-state *** rekha mittal,j. the instant petition under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure (for short the code .) has been preferred by the petitioners seeking quashing of criminal complaint no.193-2 dated 19.12.1997 for offence under sections 3(k)(1).17, 18, 29, 33 of the insecticides act, 1968 (for short the act .) read with rule 10, 27(5) of .....

Murli Manohar Vs. State of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : 2002CriLJ1295

v.m. jain, j.1. this is a petition under section 482, crpc, for quashing the criminal complaint under sections 3k(i), 9, 17, 18, 21(b), 29 and 33 of the insecticides act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the act) read with rules 16 and 19 of the insecticides rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the rules) and for quashing ..... of all consequent proceedings, arising out of the said complaint.2. it was alleged that m/s madhu sudan industries was a manufacturing industry, manufacturing different types of insecticides ..... state of punjab, 1997(2) recent criminal reports 99, it was held by this court that it was obvious from plain reading of sub-section (1) of section 33 of the act that merely being the responsible person was not enough. he should be responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. .....

M/S Cheminova India Limited and Others Vs. the State of Punjab and Ano ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

..... , fazilka versus m/s p.b.pesticides and others (annexure p/7) filed for offence under section 3 (k) (1).17, 18 and 33 punishable under section 29 (1) of insecticides act, 1968 read with section 27 (4) of the insecticides rules, 1971. on 9.1.2007, insecticide inspector, fazilka visited the premises of petitioner no.1 and took the sample of piroxifop propinyl 15% wp. the sample ..... control laboratory, ludhiana (annexure p/4) is dated 7.2.2007 and that of central insecticides laboratory, faridabad (annexure p/6) is dated 10.8.2007. under section 29 (i) of the insecticides act, 1968 the maximum sentence which can be awarded is two years and fine of `50,000/-. the complaint could be presented within a period of three years from the date of .....