Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1996CriLJ530
..... challenge urged on behalf of the respondents. the preamble to the insecticides act, 1968, reads that it was enacted by the parliament, as an act to regulate the import, manufacture, sale, transport, distribution and use of insecticides with a view to prevent risk to human beings or animals and for matters connected therewith.' 9. section 3(k) in so far as it is relevant for our ..... accordance with law. 6. the learned single judge was of the view that the insecticides act, 1968 was enacted to regulate the import, manufacture, sale, transport, distribution and use of insecticides with a view to prevent risk to human beings or animals and for matters connected therewith and that a combined reading of sec. 3(e), 3(k) 14, 19, 20 and 24 of the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2007CriLJ1899
..... the accused company and its director who had no occasion to request the court to get another sample tested in central insecticides laboratory. the court held that they have been deprived of their valuable right under section 24(4) of the insecticides act, 1968 and ultimately, criminal proceeding was quashed on this ground. relevant paras 13, 15 and 17 of this judgment read as follows ..... :13. sub-section (2) of section 24 enjoins an obligation on the insecticide inspector to deliver one copy of the report to the person from whom .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 1981CriLJ764
..... . s.m.t. private limited, subash road, jogeswari street, bombay, as the 1st, 2nd and 3rd accused respectively, for an offence punishable under section 29(1)(a) ofthe insecticides act, 1968 (which will hereinafter be referred to as the act). the insecticides in question is malstan ec 50 and a sample of it was seized from the 1st accused, who is the stockist and seller. when ..... the sample was sent to the insecticides analyst, he reported, after due analysis, that it was misbranded. a copy of the report of the analyst .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2003SC1; 100(2002)DLT323(SC); 2000(84)ECC242; 2002LC558(SC); 2002(146)ELT19(SC); JT2002(8)SC378; (2002)8SCC410; [2002]SUPP3SCR231
..... at least for thepurposes of the import/export policy. for example, sub-heading3808.10.11 mentions 'aldrin' as a form of insecticide.against that sub-heading. it is provided that it is freelyimportable/exportable "if registered and not prohibited forimport under insecticides act, 1968 and formulations thereof".similarly, 3808.90.10 provides for 'pesticides, not elsewherespecified'. it is treated as a free item under ..... dispute by the appellants. incidentally the concessionwas also made before the high court in the appellants'affidavit. besides the circular dated 27^th july 1995 issued bycbec under section 37b of the central excise act, 1944 statedthat "the pesticide chemicals and formulations will both beclassified under heading 38.08 of the ceta, 1985". similarlythe department of revenue's circular dated 28^th .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2002(1)ALD(Cri)314; 2002(1)ALT(Cri)231
..... . 'it is under those circumstances, the supreme court came to the conclusion that the accused therein were deprived of their valuable right to have the sample tested from the central insecticides laboratory under sub-section (4) of section 24 of the insecticides act, 1968.the supreme court further took note of the fact that the accused in the said case notified to the ..... to the accused and the prosecution launched based upon such reports, which are hit by the rule, would get vitiated. the supreme court while interpreting section 24 of the insecticides act, 1968 which is in pari materia to rule 21 (3) of the seeds rules, 1968 observed:'then in order to safeguard the right of the accused to have the sample tested from the central .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2001(2)ALD(Cri)626; 2001(2)ALT(Cri)352; 2002CriLJ510
..... 1998 on the file of the judicial i class magistrate, palasa. the prosecution was launched against the accused on the complaint filed under section 29(i)(a) r/w sec. 3k(i)(viii) of the insecticides act, 1968, and rule 19 of the insecticides rules, 1971. the complainant was examined as pw-1 on 27.11.1998 and the charges were framed on 4.2.1999 .....
Tag this Judgment!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!