Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR
Manoj Kumar D. Patel – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Yashvir Singh Rathor, J.
By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prayer has been made to quash Complaint Case No.257 dated 01.04.2015 titled as “State vs M/s Modern Khetibari & Beej Store and others” under Sections 3 (k)(i), 17, 18, 29, 33 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') read with the Insecticides Rules, 1971, pending for adjudication in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar (Annexure P-1), apart from the summoning order dated 22.12.2016 (Annexure P-2) and all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners.
2. As it emerges on perusal of the paper book, on 11.12.2012, Insecticide Inspector, Bhogpur, District Jalandhar, visited the shop of M/s Modern Khetibari & Beej Store, Bhogpur, District Jalandhar and after making necessary statutory compliances, drew sample of insecticide Clodinofop Propargyl 15% WP, Batch No.MF-10907-CL, with manufacturing date as 07.10.2011 and expiry date as 06.10.2013., manufactured by M/s Makhteshim Agan India Pvt. Ltd., (now known as M/s Adama India Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. Out of three representative samples collected by the Insecti
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.
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 ....
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.
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 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....
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.
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....
A retailer or marketing firm is not liable for misbranding if the insecticide was sold in sealed packaging and there is no evidence of their knowledge regarding the misbranding.
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
