Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: insecticides act 1968 section 31 cognizance and trial of offence Court: andhra pradesh Page 1 of about 2 results (0.083 seconds)

Y.R.S. Rao Vs. Deputy Director of Agriculture and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 1980CriLJ1364

..... madhava reddy, j.1. in this batch of writ petitions the validity of sections. 3 (k)(1), 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 of the insecticides act, 1969 (central act 46 of 1968) (hereinafter referred to as the act or insecticides act) is challenged as unconstitutional, violating articles. 14, 19(1)(d)(f) and (g) and 21 of the constitution of india.2 ..... there is contravention of any of those provisions. only by such provision it would be possible to effectively enforce the provisions of the act and the rules.' section 33 of the insecticides act imposes no more additional liability on the persons in charge of the business of the company then it imposed on any person who conducts ..... conduct of the business of the company, shall be liable to be proceeded against in respect of any offence under the act. section 33(1) of the insecticides act reads as follows:section 33(1): whenever an offence under this act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed was in charge of, .....

Shroff Industries Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and ors. Vs. Government of A.P., ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2000(1)ALD(Cri)495; 2000(3)ALT605; 2000(1)ALT(Cri)422; 2000CriLJ2092

..... pending in the court of vi addl. munsif magistrate, guntur. the prosecution was launched against the accused petitioners under section 29(1)(a) read with section 3(k)(vii) of insecticides act, 1968, for contravening the provisions of insecticides act. the learned magistrate took cognizance of the offence. the petitioners were made to appear before the court and thereafter the ..... acquittal. however, the learned single judge of this court held that common cause case is not applicable in respect of punishable under the provisions of the insecticides act in view of para 4(c) of the judgment in common cause case and therefore the learned single judge held that the criminal case which remanded back ..... trust under indian penal code or under any other law for the time being in force; (q) offences under section 304-a of the indian penal code or any offence pertaining to rash and negligent acts which are made punishable under any other law for the time being in force; (r) offences affecting the public .....

M/S.Saidharani Shakambari Pvt. Lt Vs. The Commissioner and Director of ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

..... insecticides act, 1968 was enacted for regulating the import, manufacture, sale, transport, distribution and use of insecticides with a view of prevent risk to human beings or animals and matters connected therewith. it was amended from time to time and lastly in the year 2000. section 3 (e) of the act defines insecticide and it reads thus: (e) insecticide ..... along with a copy of the report to the persons dealing with the product and take necessary action against such persons either under the provisions of insecticides act, 1968 or fertilizer (control) order, 1985. after receipt of the explanation from the person, the authority can pass appropriate orders under the provisions of ..... in the location of the dealer and take sample thereof in order to verify whether any such product contains harmful substances attracting the provisions of insecticides act, 1968 or used as a fertilizer violating the provisions of fertilizer (control) order, 1985. the sample of the product shall be collected from the .....

The Joint Director of Agriculture Rep. by the P.P., High Court Vs. Sai ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2007CriLJ1753

..... 223 of 1996 acquitting the accused is set aside. the accused are convicted for the offence covered by the charge viz., under section 29(1)(a) read with 3(k)(i) & (viii) of the insecticides act, 1958.20. the matter is remitted back to the trial court along with entire record and the judgment of this court directing to ..... of the vi additional munsif magistrate, guntur.2. the joint director of agriculture filed a case against the accused for the offence under section 29(1)(a) read with 3(k)(i) & (viii) of the insecticides act, 1958. according to the prosecution a-1 is the dealer, a-2 is the distributor, a-3 is the managing partner, ..... mediators, therefore, an adverse inference has to be drawn under section 114(g) of the indian evidence act for non-examination of the mediators.10. under section 21(1)(e) of the act, the insecticide officer has power to take samples of any insecticide and send such samples for analysis to the insecticide analyst for test in the prescribed manner. under this clause .....

Tropical Agro Systems India Ltd. Vs. Commissioner and Director of Agri ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 1998(5)ALD492; 1998(6)ALT208

..... ' insecticide has to apply for registration of such insecticide to the registration committee appointed under section 5 of the act. section 10 lays down that an appeal can be filed against non-registration or ..... renewed after dealership licences were issued to the dealers. there are certain provisions in the insecticides act, 1968 and the rules framed thereunder which require the examination by this court in the context of the controversies raised in this petition.4. in terms of section 9 of the insecticides act, 1968 (hereinafter referred as 'the act') it is incumbent that, any person desiring to import or manufacture an .....

The Deputy Director of Agriculture, Kurnool Vs. Sondoz (India) Ltd. an ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 1991CriLJ1830

..... that the court below erred in acquitting the accused. there are no specified rules under the insecticides act, 1968. (hereinafter referred to as 'the act' for short) prescribing the procedure as to how the sample has to be drawn. generally, the insecticide inspectors will follow the procedure by taking care to draw the samples. the said method is ..... sent. even the central laboratory opined that the same was misbranded. afterwards, the complaint was filed stating that the respondents-accused are liable for punishment under section 29(1) of the insecticides act. the complainant examined p.p. ws 1 to 3 and marked ex. s.p. 1 to p. 12 ex. p. 7 is the panchanama, ..... is not above the sides of the scoop and then transfer the same into a suitable sample container. thus, specific procedure is prescribed under the above methods. the insecticides inspector, p.w. 1, admitted that he had not followed the said procedure thinking that it was not applicable. this court, in state v. eid parry limited .....

P. Venkateswara Rao and anr. Vs. the State of A.P., Rep. by Public Pro ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2004(2)ALD(Cri)108; 2004CriLJ3384

..... .p. 11259 of 2000.13. coming to the case relating to the insecticides (price, stock, display and submission of reports) order, 1986, in terms of section 2(e), insecticide inspector means, the insecticide inspector appointed by the central or state government under section 20 of the insecticides act, 1968 and sections 20 and 21 of the insecticides act are para material with clauses 27-a and 28 of the fertilizer (control ..... police, vigilance cell, civil supplies department, kakinada inspected the premises of the revision petitioners who were the fertilizers/insecticides dealers and in the course of the inspection he noticed variations in the stock and therefore initiated proceedings under section 6a of the e.c. act the joint collector issued a show cause notice. the revision petitioners submitted an explanation. the joint collector, not .....

Bharat Pulvarising Mills (P) Ltd. and ors. Vs. the State of Andhra Pra ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 1991CriLJ995

..... quash the proceedings against the petitioners in c.c. 298/1989 on the file of the 5th addl. munsif magistrate, guntur. the petitioners and others are represented under the insecticides act. a-3 is the manufacturing company, which is represented by its assistant depot manager n. sundaresan. a-5 again is the manufacturing concern i.e., m/s. bharat pulverising ..... liable to be quashed because there is no allegation that they are in charge or responsible for the conduct of the business of the company as contemplated under section 33(1) of the act. so far as the depot manager, a-4 is concerned, he is only representing the company which is the 3rd accused. he cannot be made liable ..... to be quashed against him also. that is based on s. 33(1) of the act which i have referred to above. but sub-section (2) of s. 33 says that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where an offence under this act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with .....

Seelam Koti Reddy Vs. State of A.P. and Another

Court : Andhra Pradesh

..... 7 scc 196) following another decision in state of haryana v. unique farmaid (p) ltd. ((1999) 8 scc 190) which was also a case under insecticides act. in that latter case also, the accused concerned therein made a request to the inspector also concerned therein for sending one of such samples for retesting within the ..... 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 insecticide analyst shall be evidence of the facts stated therein and shall be conclusive evidence against the accused only ..... if the accused do not, within 28 days of the receipt of the report, notify in writing to the insecticides .....

Edara Sambasiva Prasad and 4 Oth Vs. the State Through Sho Mangalagiri ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

..... about by persuasion to do any thing. the abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of section 107. section 109 provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished ..... by both the counsel. the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the following decisions to impress upon the court that the alleged act committed by the petitioners would not attract the basic ingredients of section 306 ipc. i. swamy prahaladdas vs. state of m.p. and another wherein the honble apex court observed that the words ..... but the same should be exercised with great care, caution and circumspection. the court while exercising the inherent jurisdiction under section 482 cr.p.c should always keep in mind that it has to act as an umpire to safeguard the interest of the accused person from malicious prosecution as well as the interest of the victims .....