Lawzonline.com

 

 

 


 Home>>Bare Acts>>Back to Index

 

 

30. Defences which may or may not be allowed in prosecutions under this Act.- 1. Save as hereinafter provided in this section, it shall be no defence in a prosecution under this Act to prove merely that the accused was ignorant of the nature or quality of the insecticide in respect of which the offence was committed or of the risk involved in the manufacture, sale or use of such insecticide or of the circumstances of its manufacture or import.

2. For the purposes of section 17 an insecticide shall not be deemed to be misbranded only by reason of the fact that-

a. There has been added thereto some innocuous substance or ingredient because the same is required for the manufacture or the preparation of the insecticide as an article of commerce in a state fit for carriage or consumption, and not to increase the bulk weight or measure of the insecticide or to conceal its inferior quality or other defect; or

b. In the process of manufacture, preparation or conveyance some extraneous substance has unavoidably become intermixed with it.

3. A person not being an importer or a manufacturer of an insecticide or his agent for the distribution thereof, shall not be liable for contravention of any provision of this Act, if he proves- a. That he acquired the insecticide from an importer or a duly licence manufacturer, distributor, or dealer thereof; b. That he did not know and could not, with reasonable diligence, have ascertained that the insecticide in any way contravened any provision of this Act; and

c. That the insecticide, while in his possession, was properly stored and remained in the same state as when he acquired it.

 

 

 

 

Central Bare Acts
State Bare Acts

  

 

 

 


Home | Law Dictionary | Law Schools | Law Digest | Bare Acts | Disclaimer |  Privacy Policy


  
  
 

 

 

Copy right : Indu Info (All rights reserved)