Back
KULDEEP TIWARI
Rajendra Madhao Jog – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Mr. Kuldeep Tiwari, J.
Since both these petitions derive their origin from the very complaint, besides the reliefs claimed therein are also identical, therefore, they are amenable for being decided through a common verdict.
2. In the lead petition, i.e. CRM-M-46939-2018, the petitioner No.1 is the Director of the company, namely, M/s Syngenta India Ltd., Pune (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused company'), and, petitioner No.2 is the Manager (Area Sales) of the accused company.
3. In the other petition, i.e. CRM-M-43734-2019, the petitioner is the Ex-Godown Incharge of the accused company.
4. The common reliefs, as craved by the petitioners, in both these petitions, pertain to quashing of the impugned Complaint No.3712 dated 16.03.2018, under Sections 3(k)(i), 17, 18, 29 and 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1968'), read with Rule 27(5) of the Insecticides Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1971'), titled as "State v. M/s Syngenta India Ltd. & Others", which is pending adjudication before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana. In addition, the petitioners also seek quashing of the summoning order dated 1
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 ....
Delay in prosecution unjustly denies manufacturers the right to evidence, leading to quashing of complaints against directors lacking direct involvement in misbranding offenses.
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 emphasized the strict adherence to statutory provisions regarding the timeline for re-testing under the Insecticides Act, asserting that non-compliance invalidates the complaint.
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.
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....
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
