Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1992CriLJ2444
..... . the petitioners, who are partners of m/s. kisan beej bhandar, gur bazar, malout, have moved this court for quashing complaint under sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the insecticides act, 1968, and rule 27(5) of the insecticides rules, 1971, filed against them and the manufacturer m/s. thakar chemicals, new delhi. the manufacturer has not been made a party ..... this petition. in the petition, it is stated that the dealer has violated sections 3(k)(i), 18 and 33 of the insecticides act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') by selling misbranded insecticides, and the manufacturer violated sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, and 33 of the act by manufacturing and selling misbranded insecticides.2. the only ground on which the petitioners have moved this court for .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1997CriLJ917
..... amar dass sharma, proprietor of m/s. amar khad store is involved for an offence under section 3(k) (i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the insecticides act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the act) read with rule 27(5) of the insecticides rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the rules) pending in the court of chief judicial magistrate ..... therefore, held that as the sample was purchased from a licenced manufacturer, the petitioner could not know with reasonable diligence that the insecticide in any way contravened any provision of the act.14. the said case law has direct bearing on the merits of the present cases as well for in these cases there is ..... samples were purchased from the licenced manufacturer, the petitioners could not know with reasonable diligence and care that the insecticide in any manner contravened any provision of the act. if the samples and the material of insecticide available with them was misbranded the liability lies upon the manufacturer and not the petitioners.15. in view of .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (2000)3CALLT424(HC)
..... in support of his contention mr. basu relies on a judgment of the hon'ble apex court reported in : 2000crilj2962 , which is a case under the insecticides act. 1968. in the said judgment it was held by the hon'ble apex court as follows :--'the procedure for testing the sample is prescribed and if it is ..... v. national organic chemical industries ltd. this court in somewhat similar circumstances said that the procedure laid down under section 24 of the act deprived the accused to have the sample tested by the central insecticides laboratory and adduce evidence of the report so given in his defence. this court stressed the need to lodge the ..... the drugs inspector in not complying with the said procedure has clearly violated the mandatory provisions of law provided in clause (iii) of sub-section (4) of section 23 of the act, thereby causing serious prejudice to the accused and vitiating the entire proceeding. in my considered opinion the instant proceeding should be quashed on this score .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (2002)1BOMLR483; 2002(1)MhLj211
..... can give evidence to disprove such fact,20. in state of haryana v. unique farmaid (p) ltd. and others (supra), while dealing with the provisions of insecticides act, 1968, the accused within the statutory time limit had notified to the inspector of his intention to adduce evidence in controversion of the analyst's report and requested him ..... , reported in : 2001crilj1686 .15. coming to the last submission of learned advocate for the petitioners which centers around the valuable right as provided under section 25(4) of the act, it has been urged by the learned advocate for the petitioners that on account of negligence inaction on the part of the prosecution agency, this valuable ..... its discretion at the request either of the complainant or the accused cause the sample of the drug (or cosmetic) produced before the magistrate under sub-section (4) of section 23 to be sent for test or analysis to the said laboratory, which shall make the test or analysis and report in writing signed by, or .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1990)98PLR225
..... 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the code) relates to quashment of complaint under section 3(k)(i),17, 18, 33 punishable under section 29 of the insecticides act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as tie act) read with rules 27 (5) of (he 'insecticides rules), 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the rules) and consequent proceedings taken ..... thereunder.2. in brief, facts relevant for the disposal of this petition as emerge from complaint, annexure p-1, are, that shri charan singh bhullar, insecticide ..... contained only 16.71% of such ingredient, instead of 36% sl. according to the insecticide inspector the sample of insecticide taken in this case was misbranded as contemplated under section 3(k)(i) of the act it was further pleaded that the copy of the analysis was, also delivered to the dealer .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 2004CriLJ2656
..... the last order (out of said orders) which is dated 3.3.2000 is reproduced as under:-'summons not received back. now fresh summons be issued under section 29(3) of the insecticides act, 1968 for 26.5.2000 on filing the process fee.3.3.2000 sd.. cjm, faridabad.'11. thus, it is clearfrom the above order that the petitioners ..... consequences.3.x x x x x 4. .....and request you to send the second sample to the central insecticides laboratory for re-testing as per the provisions laid down under section 24(3) and 24(4) of the insecticides act, 1968 and rules made thereunder.xxxxx8. it is clear from the above reproduced contents that on receipt of copy of the ..... test report declaring the sample as mis-branded, a specific request was made by the petitioners for re-analysis of the sample, as envisaged under section 24(3) of the act. but, admittedly, this .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1987)2GLR725
..... limited., bombay and the accused no. 3, regional manager, s.m.p. pvt. ltd., ahmedabad, from the charge under sections 3(k), 17(1)(a) and 18(1)(c) of the insecticides act, 1968. having been aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said acquittal judgment, the present appeal is preferred by the state of gujarat.2. ..... the complainant holds the requisite qualifications for his post which are required under the insecticides act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act').4. under the act, the complainant is empowered to inspect the premises and to take samples of the insecticide materials in order to verify whether they are manufactured as per the requirements under ..... on the activities ascribed to an inspector.10. in this connection, it is necessary to refer to section 20 of the act, which relates to insecticide inspectors. the relevant part of section 20 of the act runs as under:20. insecticide inspectors - (1) the central government or a state government, may, by notification in the official .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (1996)112PLR580
..... on the allegations that a sample of insecticide monocrotophos of batch no. gc-06 was drawn from the premises of ..... sarojnei saksena, j.1. the petitioners have filed this petition under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure for quashing the complaint annexure p-1 dated february 10,1994, filed against them under section 29(1) and 3(k)(i) of the insecticides act, 1968 (hereinafter in short, the act).2. the petitioners' contention is that complaint has been filed against them alongwith other accused persons .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2007(6)ALD683; 2007(6)ALT1; 2007CriLJ4773
..... of the notification dated 25-07-2007, issued by the government of andhra pradesh, the 1st respondent herein, in exercise of powers under section 27 of the insecticides act, 1968 (for short 'the act); is challenged.2. the petitioners are the manufacturers, or distributors, as the case may be, of different varieties of ..... insecticides. through the impugned notification, the 1st respondent prohibited the supply, distribution, sale, and use of insecticides, known as 'synthetic pyrethroids', for a period of 60 days, in the state of ..... in the state of andhra pradesh, cannot be supported either in law, or on facts. he contends that the power under section 27 of the act can be exercised, only where the use of insecticides is found to have resulted danger to human beings and animals, and such a reason was not even stated in the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 2004CriLJ2443
..... as an accused 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 allow the ..... judge, sirsa, confirming the aforesaid order. the petitioner has also sought quashing of the proceedings qua him and the process issued against him in complaint under section 29(1) of the insecticides act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') and the other consequential proceedings pending in the trial court.2. the brief facts of the case are that a complaint (annexure p-3) under .....
Tag this Judgment!