Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, Section 36(AB)(as -- Special Court - Manufacturing/sale of spurious and misbranded drugs - Trial held to be nullity and non est being conducted by Court having no jurisdiction - Complaint pertains to 2007 and 11 years have already elapsed since institution of complaint - Petitioners cannot be held responsible for long trial because..........
Insecticides Act, 1968, Section 24(3), (4), 21, 22 -- Misbranded insecticide - Right of accused to send sample for analysis to CIL - As per S.24(4) of the Act report of CIL shall be conclusive evidence of facts - Where complaint is filed on basis of report of CIL, accused cannot ask for analysis of sample already used at instance of person from it is taken...........
Insecticides Act, 1968, Section 24(4) -- Insecticide - Sample found misbranded - Re-analysis of second sample - Accused other than a person from whom sample is taken, also has a right to adduce evidence in controversion of Insecticide Analyst's Report - However, in case accused avails right u/s 24(4) of the Act, he must bear the expenses of test or analysis to be made by..........
Insecticides Act, 1968, Section 24(4) -- Insecticide - Sample found misbranded - Re-analysis of second sample - Such right extends to accused and complainant - Person from whom sample was taken, the right to raise an objection is circumscribed by requiring him to indicate his intention to do so within 28 days of the receipt of the copy of the report - However, no such..........
Insecticides Act, 1968, Section 24(4) -- Insecticide - Sample found misbranded - Re-analysis of second sample - Shelf life of sample already expired - Vital right vested in accused to get the sample re-tested to convert the report of analysis of sample obtained by Insecticide Inspector stood frustrated - Accused have lost the right to disprove their guilt, thus, they..........
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 7, 16, Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, Rule 32(e), (i) -- Misbranded choco pie - Public Analyst Report shows that sample was found misbranded for no, declaration of "Batch No./Lot No." and "Best Before" as per Rule 32(e), (i) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules - However, date of manufacture and date of..........
Insecticides Act, 1968, Section 17(1)(A), 18, 29(1)(A), 33 -- Insecticide - Sample found misbranded - Offence by company - Non compliance of mandatory provision of S.33 of the Act - Nowhere in complaint, it is mentioned that petitioner was incharge and was responsible for the day to day conduct of business of company at the relevant period or the alleged contravention took..........
Insecticides Act, 1968, Section 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29, 33, Insecticides Rules, 1971, Section 27(4), Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482, 468 -- Offence u/s 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 punishable u/s 29(1) of the Act r/w S.27(4) of Rules - Limitation for initiating proceedings - Starting date - It is on receipt of report of the Laboratory that sample was misbranded and..........
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Section 16(1)(a) -- Adulteration - Food Adulteration Rules 1955, - Sale of - Misbranded Hing packet each containing 10 grams - Allegation that label on package of Hing not complied with Rr.32(i) & (f) of the Rules - Held, month and year on packet not required to be given in respect of packet weighing less than 20 grams -..........
Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482 -- Misbranded tea - Sale of - Criminal Proceedings - Quashing of - Allegation is that the words 'BEST BEFORE' on packet of Dandi Tea were printed in small letters violating R.32 of the Rules, as same does not conform to labeling provision of R.32 - Held, empty packet of Dandi Tea shows..........
