Insecticides Act, 1968, Section 30(3) -- Sample of insecticide - Sample drawn from sealed packing - Petitioner was selling the insecticide in sealed containers in original form as obtained from the registered manufacturer - Insecticide was properly stored and remained in the same state in which it was when acquired from the manufacturers - Held, prosecution cannot be..........
Insecticide Act, 1968, Section 29 -- Misbranding - Sample of Insecticide was drawn after breaking the seal, out of one litre original sealed and packed container - Misbranding of Insecticide found - Petitioner not responsible for contents of the container from which the sample was drawn - No allegation that insecticides were not properly stored - Petitioners being the..........
Insecticides Act, 1968, Section 30(3) -- Stockist and dealer - Sample taken from sealed container - Nothing to indicate that insecticide was not properly stored - It is the manufacturer and not the stockist/dealer/distributor who is liable - Proceedings quashed...........
Insecticides Act, 1968, Section 31, 33 -- Sample found misbranded - Sanction granted to prosecute company through its responsible person Sant Lal - It is sanction for prosecution of the company and not sanction for prosecution of Sant Lal - Complaint and summoning of Sant Lal quashed...........
Insecticides Act, 1968, Section 29, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482 -- Sample of insecticide - Drawn from sealed container - Found misbranded after analysis - It is the manufacturer and not the licensee who is liable - Continuation of criminal proceedings against Licensed Dealer an abuse of the process of Court - Proceedings quashed...........
Insecticides Act, 1968, Section 30(3) -- Insecticide - Sample drawn from dealer from sealed containers - Misbranding - Manufacturer and not dealer is liable - Criminal proceedings against licensed dealer quashed...........
Insecticides Act, 1968, Section 29, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482 -- Insecticide - Sample found misbranded - Sample taken from sealed tin - Manufacturer and not licensee liable - Proceedings against Licensed Dealer is an abuse of process of Court - Proceedings quashed...........
Insecticides Act, 1968, Section 24(1) -- Sample - Drawn from sealed container - Misbranding - Manufacturer and not dealer is liable...........
Insecticides Act, 1968, Section 24 -- Sample - Analysis after 177 days - It is obligatory upon the Laboratory to deliver the test report duly signed in duplicate on the prescribed form to the Insecticides Inspector within 30 days from the date of receipt of sample part - In the instant case the report was signed after about 6 months as the sample was sent on 10.7.2003 and..........
Agriculture -- Paddy cultivation - Damage to crop - Allegedly due to use of insecticides, weedicides and bio - chemicals - Neither Ramban Fertilizer has been got tested by the appellant against which he had complained originally nor he had got tested the mixture of all these chemicals if these were liable to damage his crop - It was reported in the newspapers placed on..........
