Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2006(3)Raj2023; 2006(4)WLC352
..... no. 1 arvind kumar tyagi is its employee. license under section 13 of the insecticides act, 1968 was obtained. the sample was taken on 21.7.1998 by the insecticide inspector and on examination it was found that it does not conform to the relevant prescribed ..... present misc. petition under section 482 cr.p.c. by petitioners arvind kumar tyagi and m/s. jai shree agro industries ltd. seeks quashing of the proceedings initiated against them.2. briefly stated the relevant facts giving rise to this petition are that petitioner no. 2 m/s. jai shree agro industries ltd. is a pesticide (insecticide) manufacturing industry and petitioner ..... this court, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.8. consequently, this petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings instituted on the basis of the complaint filed by the insecticide inspector against the petitioners are hereby quashed. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2004CriLJ3426
..... on 20th jan., 1994 insecticides inspector shri mani ram tomar collected sample of methyl parathion 2% d. p. from the shop of m ..... . mathur, j.1. by way of instant petition under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure, the petitioners seek to quash the order dated 8-1-1999 passed by judicial magistrate, pilibanga taking cognizance against the petitioners for offence under sections 17 and 18 read with section 29(1)(a) of the insecticides act, 1968.2. briefly stated, the facts of the case are that .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2003(3)Raj1484; 2002(5)WLN78
..... -action by the inspector for getting the sample tested by the central laboratory. these authorities deal with the provisions of section 24 of the insecticides act, 1968 which are pari materia with the above quoted provisions of the act.12. the argument which has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners has been squarely dealt with by ..... the hon'ble apex court in the case of ram shanker misra v. state of u.p. (7), which is a case under the act ..... report is inadmissible in evidence. according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the sample ought to have been given to the analyst at lucknow under section 25(1) of the act and should not have been sent direct to the director of central drugs laboratory, calcutta. the submission is that by sending the sample straight to the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2003(3)Raj1503; 2002(5)WLN67
..... cr.p.c. seeks quashing of the criminal proceedings pending in criminal case no. 959/96 for the offences under sections 29(1)(a) of the insecticides act, 1968 (hereinafter called in short, 'the act') in the court of learned judicial magistrate, 1st class, vijaynagar, sriganganagar.2. briefly stated, the relevant facts of the case are ..... that dr.p.n. katiyar, the then agricultural officer (plaint protection)-cum-inspector insecticides, ignp, anupgarh alongwith surjeet singh asstt. ..... in evidence. according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the sample ought to have been given to the analyst at lucknow under section 25(1) of the act and should not have been sent direct to the director of central drugs laboratory, calcutta, the submission is that by sending the sample straight .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1988CriLJ1186; 1987(1)WLN492
..... .c. is directed for quashing the proceedings relating to the prosecution of the petitioners for the offence under section 13/29 of the insecticides act, 1968.2. a complaint was filed against the petitioners by the inspector insecticides sri ganganagar for the offence under section 13/29 of the insecticides act, 1968 with the allegations that on 24-9-83 he visited the shop of m/s. ganga sahai ..... badrinath, ganganagar and a sample of dye-macron manufactured by the petitioners company was taken and when a bill was obtained it came to the notice that the petitioner company is stocking the insecticides without licence. the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2009(2)Raj1460; 2009(1)WLN116
..... cognizance against the petitioner. hence this misc. petition.4. in criminal misc. petition no. 41/2008, a complaint under section 29(1) of the insecticides act, 1968 was filed by the assistant director of agriculture (extension) & insecticides inspector, hanumangarh junction, on 17.3.2006 alleging therein that the insecticide product imidachloprid 17.8% sl batch no. 2003-j-01 was misbranded. the sample of the aforesaid ..... insecticide was drawn and sent to the laboratory, which was found to be misbranded. the learned judicial magistrate, pilibanga, distt. hanumangarh .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2005CriLJ714; RLW2004(2)Raj1225; 2004WLC(Raj)UC350
..... officer, ignp, suratgarh to institute the case for prosecution under sections 29 of the insecticides act, 1968 in public interest against the following:dealer:01: m/s rishi pesticides, 117, new dhan mandi, suratgarh.02 ..... powers conferred under sub-section (1) of section 31 of the insecticides act, 1968 (central act 46 of 1968) and after careful examination of the case, i hereby give written consent on behalf of the state government (authorized vide govt. notification no. f.4(4) agri./gr.2/a/79, dated 19.4.84) to the insecticide inspector & district extension ..... petitioners were responsible for conduct of business. they have also been deprived of their right to get the sample analyzed by the central insecticide laboratory under section 24 of the act. it is not necessary to examine these contentions in detail, as the petition deserves to be succeeded on first ground alone.5. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 1998CriLJ4767
..... orders.l. mital, j.1. the petitioners have challenged their prosecution under section 29(1)(a) of the insecticides act, 1968 (hereinafter referred in short 'the act') by dy. director agriculture (extension) pesticides inspector and registration authority, sirohi through this petition under section 482 cr.p.c. by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this court.2. petitioner no. 2 is ..... fact about the responsibility of the petitioners nos. 2 to 8, they are not liable to be prosecuted against under section 33 of the act. the petitioners' contention finds full support by the decision of bharat insecticides v. state of rajasthan (supra).5. in view of the foregoing discussion, i am of the view that ..... relied on behalf of the petitioners 1997 (1) wlc (raj) 657 m/s. bharat insecticides ltd. v. state of rajasthan. section 33 of the act clearly envisages that if an offence is committed by a company under the said act, every person who is incharge of or is responsible to the company for the conduct of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : RLW2008(3)Raj2498
..... in : 2000crilj2962 . according to learned counsel for the petitioner the language used in section 24 of the insecticides act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the act of 1968) is pari-materia rather say verbatim same to section 25 of the act of 1940 and in view of the above judgment this petition filed under section 482 cr.p.c. deserves to be allowed as the said judgment of the ..... request for sending the sample for testing to the central laboratory as could have been done under sub-section (3) and (4) of section 24 of the insecticides act of 1968 and in the case under the drugs and cosmetics act of 1940, sub-section (3) and (4) of section 25. as happened in the case of unique farmaid (p) ltd., (supra) in the present case also, by .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2007CriLJ749
..... (2) wlc (raj) 378 : 1998 cri lj 3593, this court while considering mechanically identical provisions of section 33 of the insecticides act, expressed the following opinion:a bare perusal of section 33 of the act shows that this section does not make it mandatory that the directors, managers, secretaries and other officers of the company shall be ..... an offence under this act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed was ..... presumptions have to be drawn in accordance with the provisions contained in section 114 of the evidence act after taking into consideration all relevant facts having a bearing on the question.19. it is worthwhile to note the provisions of section 33 of the insecticides act which reads as under:33. offences by companies.- (1) whenever .....
Tag this Judgment!