Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: insecticides act 1968 section 6 other committees Page 6 of about 243,469 results (0.474 seconds)

S. Rajasekar and Others Vs. S. Thirugnana Sambandam and Another

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 1995(1)ALT(Cri)433; 1994CriLJ3583

..... four petitioners are a. 1 to a. 3. they are being proceeded with for violation of s. 3(k)(1) of the insecticides act, 1968 on the allegation that a. 1 is the firm which manufactured and distributed the misbranded insecticide and a. 2 and a. 3 are the chairman and chief lab chemist of a. 1 and a. 4 is the dealer who ..... are doing business under the name and style of m/s. bayer india limited. the sample of the said insecticide in 100 ml. packing was taken from a. 1 shop in his presence, in accordance with the provisions of section 22 of the act. on analysis, it was found to be misbranded. a. 1 was intimated of the report of the analyst by ..... . 2. short facts are : in s.t.c. 1148/90, the first respondent has filed the complaint against four accused for offences punishable under sections 29(1) read with 3(k)(i) and 33(1) of the insecticides act. the relevant allegations in it are briefly as follows :- a. 1 is the retail dealer of pesticides. a. 2 is the state distributor for .....

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 Managing Director, Anup Product Limited (Agro Chemical-division), ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : 2001CriLJ4334; ILR2001KAR5217

..... orderthe court1. the petitioners are being prosecuted for an offence punishable under section 29(1) of the insecticides act, 1968 ('act' for short) at c.c. no. 629 of 1995 on the file of the learned j.m.f.c., bhalki. in this petition under section 482 of the cr.p.c., they seek quashing of the same.2. the alleged ..... in these appeals have been deprived of their valuable right to have the sample tested from the central insecticides laboratory and 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 ..... without launching of the prosecution, the court would not be seized of the matter in order to decide under sub-section (4) of section 24 of the act in the matter of sending the sample to the central insecticides laboratory. it is therefore to be expected that, prosecution will be launched expeditiously, at any rate before the .....

M/S Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Vs. State of Karnataka - by Prl. Secretory to ...

Court : Karnataka

..... entry 23 of iii schedule and accordingly contended referring to item 6 of the schedule annexed to the insecticides act, 1968, that the word d allethrin is shown as substance which comes within the definition of insecticides as defined under s.3(e) of the insecticides act of 1968. it is also submitted, the active ingredients used - imiprothrin, cypermethrm, etc., in the petitioner's products are mentioned ..... and rodenticides in the said entry, the petitioners goods have not been certified as scheduled insecticides. it is also stated, the ministry of agriculture. department of agriculture & co-operation, government of india has classified and classified the petitioner's household insecticides products under s.3 of the insecticides act, 1968 and the reassessment order passed by the respondent authority is without any basis and not .....

D.A. Vaishnav Vs. State of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : 1998CriLJ610

..... article 227 of the constitution of india, is for quashing the complaint dated 7-8-1992 (ann. p. 2), under sections 3(k) 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the insecticides act, 1968 (for short, the 'act') read with rule 27(5) of the insecticides rule 1971, pending in the court of sub divisional judicial magistrate, moga, and also for quashing all consequential proceedings arising thereof ..... .2. m/s. gujarat narmada valley fertilizer company ltd., chandigarh, (petitioner) is a licenced manufacturer of different insecticides/ pesticides including butachlore 50% e. c .....

Prabhakar Tulshiramji Mankar and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2005(2)ALLMR34; 2005(2)BomCR268; 2005(1)MhLj228

..... possession of the petitioners, were misbranded or not.18. the licensing authority and the appellate authority have ignored the provision contained in sub-section (3) of section 30 of the insecticides act, 1968 where under the presumption is to protect the licensee if the conditions laid down therein are fulfilled. in earlier part of the judgment ..... achalpur, in regular criminal case no. 174 of 1993, in respect of the same alleged misbranded insecticides, for offences under sections 420, 486 r/w 34 of the indian penal code and section 29 of the insecticides act, 1968. mr. naik, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed before the court the judgments of the ..... authorities in right perspective.10. the learned counsel for the petitioners, placing reliance on sub-section (3) of section 30 of the insecticides act, 1968, submitted that a person not being an importer or a manufacturer of an insecticide or his agent for the distribution thereof, shall not be liable for a contravention of any .....

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 .....

Hindustan Chemicals Industries Vs. State of Punjab

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : [1997]88CompCas794(P& H)

..... had already expired. in support of this submission, he drew my attention to the provisions of section 24 of the insecticides act, 1968. section 24 of the insecticides act, 1968, reads as follows : '24. report of insecticide analyst.-(1) the insecticide analyst to whom a sample of any insecticide has been submitted for test or analysis under sub-section (6) of section 22, shall, within a period of sixty days, deliver to the ..... insecticide inspector submitting it a signed report in duplicate in the prescribed form. (2) the insecticide inspector on receipt .....

Bharat Pulverising Mills Ltd. Vs. the Joint Director of Agriculture (i ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1992)2MLJ511

..... in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the insecticides act, 1968 (central act no. 46 of 1968) is intended to prevent risk to human beings in the use of insecticides and if the contents of the container is defective in quality, it will come under section 3(k)(i) of the insecticides act, 1968 stating that the article must be deemed to be 'misbranded'. it is ..... also alleged in the affidavit that under section 3(k)(i) of the insecticides act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') will not apply to a case where the actual quantity found in the .....

Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Food Inspector and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... malhotra also referred to the provisions of the insecticide act, 1968, which by virtue of the explanation to rule 65 has been made applicable to the said rule regarding usage of the expression "insecticide", and, in particular, section 33 thereof, which relates to offences so committed by a company. section 33 provides that in regard to offences by companies ..... "nil colouring matter", it would be a case of adulteration within the meaning of section 2(j) of the 1954 act, if the article contains any colouring matter.24. mr. bhat submitted that the question as to whether the insecticide residue found in the product of the appellants amounted to adulteration or not, is a ..... submitted for such analysis.31. ordinarily, since the level of insecticide residue was within the limits of tolerance prescribed for carbonated water with effect from 17th june, 2009, the same would not attract the provisions of section 2(m) of the 1954 act or the consequences thereof, but the finding of the public analyst .....