Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2007CriLJ1899
..... the accused company and its director who had no occasion to request the court to get another sample tested in central insecticides laboratory. the court held that they have been deprived of their valuable right under section 24(4) of the insecticides act, 1968 and ultimately, criminal proceeding was quashed on this ground. relevant paras 13, 15 and 17 of this judgment read as follows ..... :13. sub-section (2) of section 24 enjoins an obligation on the insecticide inspector to deliver one copy of the report to the person from whom .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2008(1)Raj614
..... by common judgment, because grounds of challenge to orders taking cognizance of offence punishable under section 29(1) of insecticides act, 1968 ('the act') and issuing process against petitioners are one and the same.2. cr. misc. petition 312/2001 under section 482 cr.p.c. is directed against order dt. 5.9.95 taking cognizance of ..... offence under section 29 of the act and summoning petitioners in cr. case no. 217/95 pending before addl. ..... and petitioner no. 1 m/s. searle india ltd. ('company'), engaged in manufacturing pesticides.9. on 28.9.1994, in exercise of power under section 21(1) of the act, insecticide inspector (plant protection), inspected m/s. om agro agencies, bhankrota jaipur which is licensed retailer of petitioner-co., and took sample of fenwal 20ec (fenvalerate .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2000CriLJ2623
..... judicial magistrate, nohar whereby he rejected the application of the petitioner for dropping the proceedings against him pending in his court under section 17(1)a r/w section 29(1)a of the insecticides act, 1968.2. mr. bhansali, learned counsel for the petitioner, pointing out that the petitioner has been denied the right of retesting of ..... notify to the inspector his intention to adduce evidence in controversion of the report. the provisions of the section 25 of the drugs and cosmetics act, 1940 are identical to the provisions of section 24 of the insecticides act, 1968.10. in view of the fact that the petitioner has been deprived of his right of retesting of ..... the sample by the central insecticides laboratory, despite his request to get it examined by the said laboratory, the proceedings .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2001CriLJ1551; 2000WLC(Raj)UC327; 2000(2)WLN480
..... petition under section 482, cr. p.c. in which it has been prayed that the complaint filed against the petitioners before judicial magistrate, ladnu district nagaur be quashed.2. i have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned public prosecutor.3. shiv prasad goyal was appointed as a inspector under the insecticides act, 1968 and ..... ladnu falls with in his jurisdiction. it is alleged that on 22-7-1994. m/s. kisan beej bhandar was checked and bheru singh, is proprietor, was found present. he was selling dimethoate 30% e.c. (an insecticide) and had stored the same in the shop. ..... to how the petitioners no. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 were responsible for the business of anu products ltd. which is said to have manufactured the insecticides. yet the sanction mentions the names of the accused petitioners. the complaint does not disclose as to who was responsible for the conduct of the business of m/s .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1999CriLJ159
..... public prosecutor and perused the original record of the case.2. by this petition filed under section 482 cr. p.c. the petitioners have prayed that the proceedings of criminal original case no. 80/87 under section 29(1) of the insecticides act, 1968, pending in the court of munsif and judicial magistrate, pali be quashed as the order ..... learned munsif and judicial magistrate on the first complaint clearly shows that the learned munsif and judicial magistrate did not take cognizance of the offence under section 29(1) of the insecticides act at any stage before passing the order dated 1st october, 85. in these circumstances, the order of dismissal of the complaint passed on 1st ..... are no averments and much less evidence to show that the accused nos. 4 and 5 are in any manner responsible for the alleged offence under section 33 of the insecticides act. on the basis of above submissions, it is prayed that the order of issuing process against the petitioners be quashed.8. the learned public .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2003(3)Raj1639; 2002(5)WLC793; 2002(1)WLN192
..... cr.p.c. has been filed by the accused petitioners, who are ., abu road and ors. (1), for the offence under section 29(1)(a) of the insecticides act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act of 1968') pending in the court of judicial magistrate, first class, abu road be quashed.2. it maybe stated here that dealer m/s. abu road krishi kraya ..... . on 22.8.1992, the learned judicial magistrate, abu road took cognizance against the accused petitioners and others mentioned in the complaint for the offence under section 29(1)(a) of the act of 1968 and thereafter, notices were issued to the accused petitioners as well as to the dealer by the court.thereafter, on behalf of the dealer m/s. ..... not effected on the present accused petitioner upto 3.12.1992.4. in this petition under section 482 cr.p.c., looking to the above facts, it has been submitted by the accused petitioners that since the date of manufacturing of the insecticide in question was 4.1.1991 and date of expiry was 3.12.1992 and till then .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2003(1)Raj472; 2002(1)WLN264
..... carries weight. the punjab and haryana high court in the case of tarsem singh (supra) held that in every enactment, for example insecticides act, 1968, prevention of food adulteration act, 1954 and drugs and cosmetics act, 1940 there is a provision to send the sample for re-testing to the central laboratory and since in the order of 1985 there ..... 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(c)(iii) of the fertiliser (control) order, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the order of 1985) punishable under section 3/7 of the essential commodities act be quashed and simultaneously the complaint filed by the fertiliser inspector be also quashed. 4. it arises in the following circumstances:- , i) rajmal mehta, assistant ..... in so many cases has held that when a law is declared to the invalid, it should be declared prospectively and not retrospectively. since in the present case section 19 was declared violative of article 19 of the constitution of india on 16.9.96 and sample was taken on 9.7.98, therefore, this judgment .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1998CriLJ4534; 1999(1)WLC498
..... given in these cases are not relevant in the present case. in both the cases, the accused persons were prosecuted for the offences under section 29 of the insecticides act and not under the drugs and cosmetics act, 1940. the learned counsel for the petitioner has not cited before me any decision under the. drugs and cosmetics ..... and therefore, what is stated by the manufacturer by mentioning the date of expiry, cannot be regarded as a fact within the meaning of evidence act. section 114 of the evidence act is also not attracted to such statements, because the statement made by the manufacturer does not indicate any such common course of natural events, human ..... right. they are required to exercise this right in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 25 of the act. the distinction between sub-sections (3) and (4) of the act is that sub-section (3) of section 25 declares the report of the analysis to be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1998CriLJ1865
..... case no. 294/95 titled state v. sohan lal and ors. whereby the learned magistrate has taken cognizance of offences punishable under sections 17(1)(a) and 18(1)(c) read with section 29 of the insecticides act, 1968 (for short 'the act').2. briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner no. 1 is a manufacturer and supplier of ..... insecticides while petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are its directors functioning at delhi. shri ramdas garg, who is proprietor of m/s. aggarwal pesticides .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1999CriLJ3794; 1999WLC(Raj)UC494
..... days, deliver to the insecticide inspector submitting it a signed report in duplicate in the ..... after the date of the expiry of the insecticides, submitted that on the technicalities the trial of the petitioners should not be quashed.4. section 24 of the insecticides act, 1968 reads as follows :-24. report of insecticide analyst.- (1) the insecticide analyst to whom a sample of any insecticide has been submitted for test or analysis under sub-section (6) of section 22, shall, within a period of sixty .....
Tag this Judgment!