Back
DEEPAK GUPTA
Rakesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
This order shall dispose of two petitions as titled above, arising out of the same complaint. Facts are noticed from CRM-M-20742-2018 (O&M), as reply by the respondent has been filed only therein.
2. By way of these petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer has been made to quash complaint case No.1 dated 09.01.2018 titled as “State v. M/s Wadhwa Agro Centre & Others” under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29, 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971, pending for adjudication in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib (Annexure P-1), apart from the summoning order dated 09.01.2018 (Annexure P-2) and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners.
2. As it emerges on perusal of the paper book that on 11.07.2012, Insecticide Inspector, Bassi Pathana, visited the premises of M/s Wadhwa Agro Centre, Old Anaj Mandi, Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib [petitioner N: 2 in CRM-M-6331-2018] . Petitioner N: 1 the said petition is the proprietor of petitioner N: 2. After making necessary statutory compliances, he drew a
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 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....
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.
Delay in filing a complaint under the Insecticides Act beyond the statutory period of limitation can result in misuse of the process of law and prejudice the defense of the accused, leading to the qu....
Delay in prosecution unjustly denies manufacturers the right to evidence, leading to quashing of complaints against directors lacking direct involvement in misbranding offenses.
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
