JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Jatinder Mehta – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. quashing of the complaint due to lack of specific claims. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding insufficiency of allegations. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's observations on summoning orders and vicarious liability. (Para 5 , 6 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. vicarious liability must be strictly established. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. final order to quash proceedings against the petitioner. (Para 11) |
JUDGMENT
Mr. Jasjit Singh Bedi, J. (Oral)
The prayer in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is for quashing of the complaint No.35 dated 06.06.2016 under Section 22(5) of the Insecticide Rules, 1971 and Section 3 (k) (I), 17, 18, 19 and 33 of INSECTICIDES ACT , 1968 titled titled as ' State of Punjab v. M/s Punia Kheti Centre and others (Annexure P-1) pending before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, summoning order dated 06.06.2016 (Annexure P-2) and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 12.07.2013, the complainant-Gurmit Singh, Insecticide Inspector alongwith Gurmail Singh, ADO(PP), Bhunerheri (Patiala), visited the premises of M/s Punia Kheti Centre Mardanhedi. At that time, Gurjit Singh son of Gurpreet Singh, Proprietor was pre
M/s Oswal Agro Sales Corporation v. State of Punjab
Madan Mohan Nayar v. State of Punjab
National Small Industries Corporation v. Harmeet Singh Paintal
S.K. Jindal v. State of Haryana
Shabbir Itarsi v. State of Haryana
(1) Though, Managing Director is overall incharge of affairs of company, whether such officer is to be prosecuted or not, depends on facts and circumstances of each case and relevant provisions of la....
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.
Delay in prosecution unjustly denies manufacturers the right to evidence, leading to quashing of complaints against directors lacking direct involvement in misbranding offenses.
Retailers cannot be held liable under the Insecticides Act for misbranding unless they have knowledge or direct involvement; liability requires specific allegations linking the accused to the offense....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.