1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Directors cleared, others face charges under Insecticides Act 1968.</h1> The court quashed proceedings against the directors (A-3 and A-4) but dismissed the petition concerning the dealer and distributor (A-1 and A-2) and the ... - Issues:1. Quashing of proceedings against the accused under the Insecticides Act 46 of 1968.2. Interpretation of Section 33 of the Act regarding liability of individuals in a company for offences committed.Analysis:1. The petition was filed to quash proceedings against the accused under the Insecticides Act 46 of 1968. The accused included a dealer, distributor, and directors of the manufacturing company, along with the chemist. The counsel for the petitioners did not press the petition for the dealer and distributor, A-1 and A-2.2. The main contention revolved around the liability of the directors (A-3 and A-4) and the chemist (A-5) of the manufacturing company. Section 33 of the Act was crucial in determining their liability. The court ruled that A-3 and A-4, being directors, could not be held responsible as there was no specific allegation against them regarding the conduct of the business of the company.3. However, the court held that the chemist (A-5) could be held liable under Section 33(2) of the Act. The allegation was that a pesticide sample was misbranded, and the chemist was responsible for the manufacturing process. The court emphasized that if it is proved during trial that the chemist was involved in the misbranding with consent or neglect, he could be held guilty. Reference was made to a previous judgment to distinguish the aspect of being responsible for business conduct from being liable for offences committed with consent or neglect.4. Ultimately, the court quashed the proceedings against A-3 and A-4, the directors, but dismissed the petition concerning A-1, A-2, and A-5, the chemist. The decision highlighted the importance of proving the chemist's involvement in the misbranding during the trial to establish liability under Section 33(2) of the Act.Conclusion:The judgment clarified the liability of individuals in a company under the Insecticides Act 46 of 1968, emphasizing the need to prove consent or neglect for holding them accountable for offences committed. The court's decision to quash proceedings against the directors while allowing the case against the chemist to proceed underscored the importance of evidence in establishing individual responsibility within a company for statutory violations.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
