Back
DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
Ravi Singhal, S/o. Vive Singhal – Appellant
Versus
State of A. P. – Respondent
ORDER :
This Criminal Petition has been filed by the petitioners/A.4 and A.5 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short “Cr.P.C”) for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.569 of 2013 on the file of the Court of II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Ongole for the offence under Sections 29(1)(a) read with Section 3(K)(i) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), against them.
2. Heard Sri Avinash Desai, learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State and Sri C.Subodh, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, apart from perusing the material available on record.
3. The brief facts of the case are that A.1 is the firm dealing with the pesticides business as a retail dealer under the name and style of “M/s.Agros Rythu Seva Kendram”, Pamur, and A.2 is the Proprietor of A.1 firm carrying on business in the premises situated at D.No.2-212, Ranganayakulu Building, Nellore Road, Pamur. A.3 is the Company distributing the Insecticides under the name and style of “M/s.BiotechInternational Limited”; A.4 is the C.E.O of the A.3 Company responsible for the manufacture of A.3 firm and A.5 is the fir
The court ruled that the limitation period for filing a complaint under the Insecticides Act begins from the date the Government Analyst's report is received, not from the sample collection date.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the period of limitation for filing a complaint under the Insecticides Act commences from the date of receipt of the analyst's report, and the....
Delay in prosecution unjustly denies manufacturers the right to evidence, leading to quashing of complaints against directors lacking direct involvement in misbranding offenses.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the limitation period for launching prosecution under the Insecticides Act, 1968, and the exclusion of time for obtaining con....
The failure to issue a notice under Section 24(2) of the Insecticides Act violated the applicants' rights to have the sample tested, leading to the quashing of the complaint.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
