Back
AMAN CHAUDHARY
Sohan Singh Gill – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Aman Chaudhary, J.
The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the Complaint Case No.92 dated 05.01.2018, Annexure P-1 registered for violation of Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticide Act, 1968 read with Rule 27(5) of Insecticide Rules, 1971 titled as " State v. M/s Kissan Fertilizers and others" as pending adjudication in the Court of Ld. CJM, Patiala and summoning order dated 05.01.2018, Annexure P-2 alongwith all consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners.
2. Briefly put, facts as emerge from the case are that petitioner No.1 is the proprietor of the petitioner No.2-firm, while petitioner No.3 is an ex-employee. The firm is a registered manufacturer of various kinds of insecticides and pesticides having a valid license in this regard from the appropriate authority under the INSECTICIDES ACT . It has a lab, fitted with modern equipment of testing in the factory premises, wherein each and every lot of material as manufactured is tested before it is sent out for sale in the market, leaving no scope for the product to be mis-branded. However, a raid was conducted at the premises of dealer of the petiti
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....
Period of limitation shall commence on date of offence and allowing proceedings to go on, on such complaint, which is ex facie barred by limitation is nothing but amounts to abuse of process of law.
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....
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 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
