Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: insecticides act 1968 section 26 notification of poisoning Court: punjab and haryana Page 6 of about 110 results (0.076 seconds)

Northern Minerals Ltd. and Another Vs. State of Punjab and Another

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : 2000CriLJ4278

..... as follows :- 'under the circumstances, we adduce the evidence and request you to kindly arrange to get the sample retested from the central insecticides testing laboratory as per provisions of section 24(3) and 24(4) of the insecticides act 1968 and rules made thereunder. kindly inform us the retesting charges so that the same can be remitted to you without any delay.' 3. this ..... judicial magistrate, amritsar, on the basis of the complaint (annexure 4) under sections 3(k)(1), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the insecticides act, 1968 (herein after referred to as the act) read with rule 27(5) of the insecticides rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the rules). 2. on 7-7-1992, insecticide inspector, jandialai, drew a sample of pesticide dimethoate 30 % (diadhan 30 %) batch .....

Present:- Mr. Arun Chandra Advocate Vs. State of Punjab and Another

Court : Punjab and Haryana

..... 11.09.1991 granted for the purposes of selling, stocking, exhibiting various types of insecticides under the insecticides act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'). shri ashok kumar is the proprietor of the firm m/s. sain khad bhandar, bhadson. the firm had acquired the insecticides from a duly licenced manufacturer i.e. m/s. konkan pesticides. the material ..... was not considered and the report of the state laboratory could not be considered as a final report. the petitioner was also entitled to protection under section 30(3) of the act on the basis of hon'ble supreme court judgment in m/s. kissan beej bhandar, abohar vs. chief agricultural officers, ferozepur and another, 1990 scc ..... is yet to be thrashed out at the first appellate level as to whether the petitioner was responsible for the misbranding of the insecticides and whether the benefit under section 30(3) of the act was to be granted to the petitioner and as to whether the sample drawn was in a sealed packed or not.8. .....

Present: Mr.Arun Chandra Advocate Vs. Stae of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

..... packing. in appeal vide annexure p-3 licence of the petitioner was restored in view of section 30 (3) of the act. accordingly, the petition is allowed. criminal complaint (annexure p-2) under section 3 (k) (i) 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the insecticides act, 1968 read with rule 27 (5) of the rules, 1971 and all the consequent proceedings arising therefrom ..... in his possession, was properly stored and remained in the same state as when he acquired it. . a perusal of section 30(3) of the insecticides act, 1968 shows that the petitioner is entitled to the protection under the same, in case, the sample is taken from the sealed container and the seal had not ..... . mr.deep singh, aag, punjab. *** sabina, j. petitioner has filed this petition under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 for quashing of criminal complaint (annexure p-2) under section 3 (k) (i) 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the insecticides act, 1968 (the act for short) read with rule 27 (5) of the rules, 1971 and all the consequent .....

M/S Hyderabad Chemicals Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

..... , maur mandi versus m/s yashpal garg and others (annexure p/1) filed for offence under section 3 (k) (i).17, 18, 29 and 33 punishable under section 29 (1) of insecticides act, 1968 read with section 27 (5) of the insecticides rules, 1971. on 22.12.2006, insecticide inspector, maur mandi visited the premises of m/s yashpal garg, maur mandi, bathinda and took the sample of ..... control laboratory, amritsar (annexure p/2) is dated 24.1.2007 and that of central insecticides laboratory, faridabad (annexure p/5) is dated 10.6.2007. 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 .....

M/S P.B. Pesticides and Another Vs. the State of Punjab and Others

Court : Punjab and Haryana

..... , fazilka versus m/s p.b.pesticides and others.(annexure p/6) filed for offence under section 3 (k) (i).17, 18, 29 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 was sent to punjab insecticides quality control laboratory, ludhiana and vide report dated 7.2.2007 (annexure .....

Bahadur Singh and anr. Vs. State of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : 1998CriLJ3546

..... /s hindustan pulverising mills, the manufacturer and (5) m.n. murli kumar, chief chemist of the manufacturer under sections 3k(1), 17, 18 & 33 of insecticide act,1968 for selling, stocking, distributing and manufacturing the substandard pesticide. on 1121994, the learned chief judicial magistrate, jalandhar, ordered ..... the accused to be summoned.3. that is why bahadur singh the proprietor of m/s. dhanju pesticide store and dhanju pesticides have filed cr. misc.,5583m 1997 while m/s. delhi agriculture store has filed cr. misc.6051m1997 under section ..... the petitioners they have lost the valuable right of having the insecticide reanalysed as guaranteed under section 24 of the insecticide act.8. thirdly, as pointed out already, the manufacturer of the insecticide has not been arraigne das an accused and on that ground certain .....

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

Court : Punjab and Haryana

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

..... because he happened to be the secretary of the company. in the absence of any material connecting the petitioner with the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 33 of the insecticides act, 1968, it is clear that prosecution against him would be an abuse of the process,of the court. no useful purpose would be served to ..... the secretary of the company and is responsible for this offence. it is a conspicuously vague assertion and consequently it becomes difficult to artract sub-section (1) to section 33 of the insecticides act, 1968.5. learned counsel appearing for the state of haryana in that event, urged that the petitioner is a responsible officer and under sub ..... the proceedings taken thereto.3. notice of the petition had been 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 an offence under this .....

K.G. Pappu Son of Sh. K.A. Govindan Vs. the State of Punjab Through Ch ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : 1996CriLJ2985

..... the act) against the dealer, distributor and manufacturer of the said insecticide, judicial magistrate 1st class took cognizance and summoned the accused for 8-5-1991 by order dated 4-3 ..... and took a sample of insecticide, which on analysis was found to be misbranded. after serving show cause notice and copies of analyst's report upon the manufacturer, distributor and dealer and after obtaining sanction for prosecution. shri joginder singh boparai filed a complaint (annexure p-1) under sections 3(k), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the insecticides act. 1968 (hereinafter referred to as .....

Present: Mr. N.K. Manchanda Advocate Vs. State of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

..... . manchanda, advocate for the petitioner. r.p. nagrath, j.this petition has been filed under section 482 cr.p.c. for quashing complaint no.14-2 under sections 3 (k) (i), 17, 18 and 33 punishable under section 29 of the insecticide act, 1968 and rule 27 (5) of the insecticide rules, 1971 and the summoning order dated 08.01.2008 (for short to be described as ..... 'the act') 2. it is stated that petitioner was impleaded as accused no.4 in the complaint .....

The Director, Agriculture and anr. Vs. Gurmukh Mal Shibba Mal and ors.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (1997)117PLR249

..... the view taken by the division bench in criminal misc. no. 10836-m of 1990 (mewa singh v. pirthipal singh and ors.), where a sample under the insecticides act, 1968 was sent to the central laboratory in the first instance, thus, depriving the accused of his right to get it tested. court relying upon the decision in ram ..... declare a commodity as essential commodity is not in dispute. it is also not in dispute that the central government in exercise of its powers conferred by section 3 of the act has made the order known as the fertilizer control order, 1985. as noticed earlier control order deals with the various facets, namely, price control, ..... the strength for the foreign multinationals, the nature of injuries and damages, and the limited but significant right of participation of the victims as contemplated by section 4 of the act, the act cannot be condemned as unreasonable.'16. so, whereas law is almost consistent that various enactments have to be tested on the touch stone i.e. .....