Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006CriLJ3988
..... referred to as pfa act), the seeds act and the insecticides act. it is therefore convenient to refer to the relevant statutory provisions, the rules and the judgments under each of these enactments separately.prevention of food adulteration act14. section 2(ia) of the prevention of food adulteration act, 1954 defines 'adulterated' to mean:(ia) 'adulterated'-an article of food shall be ..... in babulal hargovindas 1971 cri lj 1075, sukhmal gupta v. corporation of calcutta judgment of the supreme court in cri. appeal no. 161 of 1966 dated 3.5.1968 and ajit prasad ram kishan singh 1972 cri lj 1026, the earlier judgment in ghisa ram 1967 cri lj 939 was held inapplicable where the accused never applied to ..... the summons was served as to be incapable of being analysed. in sukhmal gupta v. corporation of calcutta cri. a. no. 161 of 1966 decided on may 3rd 1968, sikri. j., as he then was, speaking for the court said:.it was held by this court in municipal corporation of delhi v. ghisa ram 1967 cri lj .....
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 : 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 : 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 : 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!