Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: insecticides act 1968 section 26 notification of poisoning Page 17 of about 3,410 results (0.109 seconds)

Shukal and Sons Vs. State of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

ram chand gupta, j.1. the present petition has been filed by m/s shukal and sons under section 482 of code of criminal procedure for quashing of complaint under section 3(k)(i), 17/18/21/29/30 and 33 of the insecticides act, 1968 and rules 1971 framed thereunder.2. i have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole ..... that the same is fully covered by the decision of this court, annexure p3.6. hence, in view of these facts, the present petition is accepted and the complaint under section 3(k)(i), 17/18/21/29/30 and 33 of the insecticides act, 1968 and rules 1971 framed there under alongwith all consequential proceedings arising there from, is, hereby, quashed.

Mysore Agro Chemical Company Private Ltd. and anr. Vs. Union of India ...

Court : Guwahati

..... assertions deserve to be minuted. introducing itself to be a private limited company incorporated under the companies act, 1956, the petitioner has averred that it is registered as well under section 9(4) of the insecticides act, 1968 (hereafter referred to as the act) as a manufacturer of different insecticides including different types of solvents (xylene, cyclohexanone, apromax etc.) and emulsifiers (snt a, snt b etc). the ..... make their offers. the edifice of this argument is built on the provisions of the act and the rules on the supposition that bionol or cardol/cardonol is an insecticide as comprehended by these legislations. insecticide has been defined in section 3(e) of the act, as hereunder.3(e)... insecticide(i) any substance specified in the schedule; or(ii) such other substances (including fungicides and .....

United Phosphorus Ltd., Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2009(111)BomLR973

..... the apex court held that the accused were deprived of their valuable right to have the sample tested from the central insecticide laboratory as permissible under subclause (4) of section 24 of the insecticides act, 1968. considering the fact that by the time the matter reached the court, the shelf life of the sample had already expired ..... relied upon certificate of analysis issued by their own laboratory. the necessary sanction was accorded as required under section 31(1) of the insecticides act, 1968, on 1.4.1998 by the commissioner of agriculture. the insecticide inspector lodged complaint before the learned judicial magistrate, aurangabad on 24.4.1998.3. there is no dispute ..... of the report to the person from whom the sample was taken. the relevant provision contained in section 24(3) of the insecticides act, 1968, would make it amply clear that the report signed by the insecticide analyst shall be the conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein. there is deeming effect about its .....

Y.R.S. Rao Vs. Deputy Director of Agriculture, Karimnagar, Andhra Prad ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 1991LabIC1650; (1983)3SCC38b

a.d. koshal and; e.s. venkataramiah, jj.1. we have gone through section 24 of the insecticides act, 1968. we are of the view that under sub-section (3) of section 24, the report signed by an insecticide analyst shall be conclusive evidence only against a person from whom the sample had been taken and who had the ..... opportunity to notify his intention to contest its correctness as mentioned therein but had not availed of such opportunity.2. sub-section ..... its discretion at the request of either the complainant or of the accused cause the sample of the insecticide produced before the court under section 22(6) to be sent for test or analysis to the central insecticide laboratory which shall make the test or analysis and report in writing signed by, or under the .....

Fauji Sewa Centre Vs. State of Punjab and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : 2006CriLJ1386; 2006FAJ246

..... the parties and have gone through the records.5. at the outset, it would be necessary to refer to the provisions of section 24 of the insecticides act, 1968, as under :24. report of insecticide analyst :(1) xx xx xx xx(2) the insecticide inspector on receipt thereof shall deliver one copy of the report to the person from whom the sample was taken and shall ..... . as per the report the weedicide was found to be misbranded and as such the petitioners are said to have committed offences punishable under sections 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the insecticides act, 1968, hereinafter referred to as the act. show cause notice dated 9-1-1989 annexure p/3 was sent to m/s. goel rice mills, gurdaspur. petitioner no. 1 i.e .....

Anu Products Ltd. and ors. Vs. the State

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 .....

Paushak Ltd. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 1990CriLJ1879

..... the business of the company and that the prosecution should have been filed against the company represented by its managing director. (2) section 33(1) of the insecticides act, 1968 says that whenever an offence under the act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time when the offence was committed was incharge of or was responsible ..... order1. this petition is filed under section 482, cr.p.c. to quash the proceedings against the petitioner who is the third accused in c.c. no. 216/89 on the file of the munsiff magistrate court, addanki. the case is filed under the insecticides act for misbranding some insecticides. in the cause title the third accused is shown as m/s. ..... or were responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. with great respect to my learned brother, i am unable to follow the said decisions. what section 33(1) says is that every person who at the time when the offence was committed was in charge of or was responsible to the company for the .....

Shantilal and anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan

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 .....

Hoechest India Ltd. and ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 1991(3)ALT538; 1992CriLJ2360

..... , kurnool filed a criminal complaint against the petitioners and five others for an offence punishable u/s. 29(1)(a) of the insecticides act. 1968 alleging that a sample from batch no. 1392 of the insecticide called 'thoidan 35% e.c. (endosulphan)' was drawn from a dealer m/s. sri krishna fertilizers, jalakanur on 4-1- ..... may not suffer on technical grounds. it is to be stated that a-5 company is a manufacturer of insecticides. if really the insecticides is misbranded within the meaning of s. 3(k)(i) of the insecticides act 1968, the company and the officers of the company who are responsible for the manufacture, distribution and sale of the ..... insectides inspector. on analysis the said sample was found by the insecticide analyst to contain the active ingredient of endosulphan of 32.15% against 35%. the insecticides analyst's report was challenged by the dealer and the sample was sent to the central insecticides laboratory, hyderabad for analysis which found that the endosulphan content in .....

Zal Balsara Vs. State of Delhi and ors.

Court : Delhi

Reported in : 2008(102)DRJ65

..... ') filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the complaint case no. 136/1997 titled plant protection officer/licensing officer v. singla agencies and ors. under section 29(1) of the insecticides act, 1968 ('act'). in the array of the accused in the complaint the petitioner was shown as accused no. 4 with the name 'jai balsara' although it should ..... read as 'zal balsara. ' 2. the complaint states that the insecticides inspector, government of delhi visited the shop of m/s. singhla agencies, 29/1, shakti ..... the trial some evidence comes on record, cognizance could be taken against the directors as well under section 319 crpc. each case depends upon its own facts. here, in reply to the notice served upon them by the insecticide inspector before filing of the complaint, petitioners did not take any stand as to who was .....