Court : Orissa
Reported in : AIR1952Ori267
..... advocate-general that the mere proof of the passing of money from p. w. 1 to the accused is enough to displace the presumption of his innocence.9. section 4 of act ii of 1947 requires that the prosecution should prove that the accused accepted or agreed to accept the amount as a gratification. 'accept' means 'to take or ..... aforesaid statement in the evidence of bhoramall on which the learned lower court and my learned brother also have relied much is inadmissible due to non-compliance with section 145 of the evidence act. even if the nagpur view 'muktawandas ajabdas v. emperor', air 1939 nag 13 is followed, no weight can be attached to it due to such non ..... bhoramall that he (purushottam) had not met the c. s. o., before and wanted bhoramall to accompany him. this is the principle laid down in section 145 of the evidence act which makes it absolutely mandatory that before a witness can be contradicted by his previous statement his attention must be drawn to that statement so as to give .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 2001CriLJ4611
..... conforming to the isi specifications with respect to its present active ingredient contained from which it was clear the anilophos 30% ec was misbranded under section 3(k)(i) of the insecticides act, 1968 as the sample contained only 24.91% active ingredient contents of anilophos instead of 30% ec. it was reported that in this manner the ..... who is holding trial to find out whether as chemist he was responsible for maintaining the quality of the insecticides manufactured by the company. section 33 of the insecticides act, 1968 reads as follows :-'(1) whenever an offence under this act has been committed by company, every person who at the time of offence was committed was in charge ..... m.i.e. bahadurgarh, distt. jhajjar through surinder kumar (n) a.k. chauhan, chemist of delta insecticides ltd. under sections 3(k)(i), 9, 17, 18,29, 30, 3(c) and 33 of insecticides act, 1968 and rule 10 of insecticides rules, 1971.2. on 2.7.1993 the business premises of m/s garg trading co., bareta was inspected .....
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 : Kerala
Reported in : 2009CriLJ2224; 2009(1)KLJ665
..... tolerance limitmg/kg(ppm)----------------------------------------------------------------------------1 2 3 4----------------------------------------------------------------------------xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx----------------------------------------------------------------------------explanation: for the purpose of this rule:(a) the expressions 'insecticide' shall have the meaning assigned to it in the insecticides act, 1968 (46 of 1968);(b) unless otherwise stated:(i) xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx(ii) all foods refer to raw agriculturalproducts moving in commerce.(3)xxxxxxxxxxxxxx(emphasis supplied - unnecessary portions omitted)22. ..... scientific community as to what tests are to be followed in the analysis of an article, the central government can settle the, controversy by formulating rules under section of the act insisting that specified tests have to be conducted. similarly, if there be a controversy as to what infrastructure of materials or personnel, is necessary to conduct a .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998VIAD(SC)92; AIR1999SC41; JT1998(5)SC408; 1998(4)SCALE488; (1998)6SCC397; [1998]3SCR1102; [1998]111STC181(SC)
..... entry 129 is erroneous. in support of this contention mr. salve referred to the certificate of registration in favour of the appellant issued under section 9(3) of the insecticides act, 1968, the leaflet and the approved label of the commodity in question, the formulation contents of the said commodity and the chemistry of the active ..... ingredients and submitted that all these documents unequivocally indicate the product in question to be an insecticide. the learned counsel also submitted that an exemption ..... hand the learned judges have merely held that jet-mat could be an insecticide coming within entry 18 of part iv of schedule ii. in the orissa case under the notification issued under section 6 of the orissa sales tax act pesticide was exempted from levy of sales tax and the question for consideration was .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1995CriLJ2002
..... .63%. in this way, you by keeping this insecticides at your shop and by selling this misbranded insecticide, have directly violated the provisions of section 3k(1) and 18(2), of the insecticides act, 1968 and have also violated the insecticides rules, so why not your licence for selling insecticides may be cancelled for your above action.you within ..... r-2 and r-3 respectively. after obtaining necessary consent under clause 31(1) of the insecticides act, 1968, this prosecution was launched against the petitioner and manufacturer according to written consent. a copy of written consent under section 31(1) is enclosed as r-2.4. it has been further stated that before launching ..... n.k. kapoor, j.1. petitioner seeks quashing of complaint under sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18 29 and 33 of the insecticides act, 1968 (for short 'the act') read with section/rule 27(5) of the insecticides rules, 1971, (for short 'the rules') and also for quashing all the consequent proceedings arising on the basis of the said .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : 1993CriLJ124
..... the dealer had received the product manfactured at the premises of the present petitioner. the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to sub-section (6) of section 22 of the insecticides act, 1968, which is reproduced as under:-'(6) the insecticide inspector shall restore one, portion of a sample so divided or one container, as the case may be, to the person from whom he ..... of the code of criminal procedure and challenged the summoning order passed against him in a complaint under sections 3(k), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the insecticide act 1968 read with rule 27(5) of the insecticide rules 1971. the main allegation in the complaint is that aldrin 30% e.c. is manufactured by m/s. agro chemicals, jaipur and when its sample .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : [2006]145STC223(All)
..... is 'd-allethrin 4 per cent'. in that case also the certificate of registration in favour of the appellant issued under section 9(3) of the insecticides act, 1968, the leaflet and the approved label of the commodity in question, the formulation contents of the said commodity and the chemistry of ..... the active ingredients were submitted. even then it was considered to be mosquito repellent and not as insecticide or pesticides. on the same reasoning the kachhuwa chap agarbatti cannot be held to be insecticides ..... assessing authority treated the mosquito repellent, as unclassified item and rejected the contention of the dealer that it is covered by the entry 'pesticides and insecticides'. he concluded that 'kachhuwa chap agarbatti' is used as a mosquito repellent and it does not kill mosquito. the assistant commissioner (judicial), the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2008SC1939; (2008)2CALLT76(SC); JT2008(4)SC45; 2008(3)SCALE563; (2008)7SCC196; 2008AIRSCW2201; AIR2008SC1939; 2008(7)SCC196; (2008)3SCC(Cri)20; 2008(2)AICLR540; JT2008(4)SC45; 2008(2)LH(SC)1492
..... ) is complied with by the person concerned he cannot avail of his right under sub-section (4).8. in unique farmaids's case (supra) which was a case under the insecticides act which has provisions analogous to section 25(4) of the act, the court found that the accused had indeed made a request to the inspector for sending the sample for re-testing within ..... , that the respondents in these appeals have been deprived of their valuable right to have the sample tested from the central insecticides laboratory under sub-section (4) of section 24 of the act. under sub-section (3) of section 24 report signed by the insecticides analyst shall be evidence of the facts stated therein and shall be conclusive evidence against the accused only if the accused do .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(6)ALT515
..... word or expression 'patent' and had drawn the attention of this court to section 9(3) and section 9(4) of the insecticides act, 1968. the counsel would further maintain that in the light of the clear provisions specified under section 64 of the act, this o.p. is maintainable only before this court and this court ..... by the patentee-respondent no. 1 was already applied for manufacturing by the other company in india before central insecticide board, ministry of agriculture to obtain necessary registration under section 9(4) of the insecticides act. the said formulation was applied by the third party even prior to the date of patent application made by ..... transferred to the appellate board. the learned counsel also had taken this court through the language of section 64, section 117c, section 117d, section 117g, section 116 of the act and had explained the scope and ambit of the act and also would maintain that the intellectual property appellate board at chennai alone would have jurisdiction at .....
Tag this Judgment!