Back
V. SUJATHA
T. Kanna Rao – Appellant
Versus
State of A. P. – Respondent
ORDER :
V. Sujatha, J.
The Criminal Petition is filed seeking to quash C.C.No.143/2018 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur filed against the petitioners/accused for the offences under Section 420 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, corresponding to Cr.No.293 of 2016 of Lalapet P.S., Guntur Urban.
2. The petitioners herein are the accused Nos. 1 and 2. The 2nd respondent herein is the complainant. On 04.11.2016, the 2nd respondent vide Rc.No.A/28/2014 has submitted a complaint to the Station House Officer, Lalapet Police Station, Guntur, stating that the Gemini Crop Sciences (petitioner No.1 is the manufacturer) has requested the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture for drawal of bio product samples manufactured by the firm duly paying requisite fee of Rs.5,000/- per sample. In pursuance of the same, the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture has issued instructions on 26.11.2015 to draw samples of bio products for analysis. Accordingly, three samples each from seven bio products were drawn on 20.01.2016 from the premises of Gemini Agri Sciences shop situated at Etkuru road, Guntur and were sent to the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Pesticides Testing Laboratory a
The absence of fraudulent intent and the availability of alternative remedies under the Insecticides Act preclude criminal liability under IPC Section 420.
Delay in prosecution unjustly denies manufacturers the right to evidence, leading to quashing of complaints against directors lacking direct involvement in misbranding offenses.
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 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.
The court held that mere possession of banned insecticide without evidence of intent to sell does not constitute an offence under the Insecticides Act, reaffirming strict adherence to statutory proce....
The manufacturers of insecticides have a right to retest the insecticides by the CIL under Section 24(4) of the Insecticides Act, 1968, and if they are deprived of this right, the proceedings against....
Compliance with statutory provisions under the Insecticides Act is crucial for challenging complaints, and failure to request timely re-analysis of samples undermines defenses against allegations of ....
Distributors and dealers cannot be held liable for misbranding if the insecticide was received and sold in its original sealed condition.
Dealers cannot be held responsible for misbranding under the Insecticides Act when the samples were drawn from sealed containers and there was no evidence of tampering.
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
