1981 P Cr (PLP)

Data of haring: 20th November, 1979. This is an application for revising the order of K.M.C Magistrate Karachi under section 6(1) (b) (c) of West Pakistan Pure Food ordinance 1960, sentencing the applicant to one year R.I and a fine of Rs, 1,000 or in default to suffer further R.I. for three months. It also calls in question the order of Sessions Judge Karachi dated 25th November, 1973 dismissing the Cr. Appeal No 215/93 arising out of his conviction. I have hard Ch. Nazeer Ahmed for the applicant and Mr. Mazharul Haq Hassan Ali, Asst. A.G. for the State. The K.M.C. Inspector Wasiuzzaman had taken the two samples of Sarson oil and Tili oil from the shop of the applicant. The Sarson oil was purchased at 1.31 rupees and Tili oil 1.69 rupees as shown in Exh. 5.B. This clearly stipulates that Tili oil is considered to be superior than the Sarson oil the sample of Sarson oil was found to be deficient by the Chemical Analyst vide Exh. 2.D and she found the following value. S.A.P. Value 188.6. Iodine value. 105.2. Bauduin s test Negative. At the end the analyst stated that the sample was of Tili oil The accused in his statement had taken the position that he had sold only Tili oil and had not sold Sarson oil to the Inspector. The learned Sessions Judge sent the second sample of oil which had been taken by the Inspector Wasiuzzaman to the public analyst in order to correctly ascertain the position. Second report which is on record of the Secession file Exh. 2 shows that the second sample was of genuine Tili oil. The applicant has been convicted for selling non-genuine Sarson oil but the difficulty seems-to be that both the reports of the analyst show that the sample was of Tili oil. One report shows that it was a genuine Tili oil and the other report which brands the sample of the Sarson oil as non-genuine also shows at the end that the same is of Tili oil. Now if the analyst regards sample of Sarson oil as a sample of Tili oil and Tili oil is admittedly superior oil than Sarson oil, then one fails to understand as to why a person should be convicted for selling something which is superior in value as something which is lesser in value. I have already shown that Sarson oil is shown to be only 1.31 rupees worth while Tili oil is shown to be 1.69 rupees worth.' measurement being the same. In view of the two certificates showing both the sample as being of the Tili oil, the statement of the accused seems to be plausible that he had sold only Till oil. In any case if the samples have been found to be of Tili oil then the conviction on the basis of selling non-genuine Sarson oil would not be justified as a better product has been sold in the name of an inferior product. It is therefore not necessary to go into the details of the evidence as the whole case hinges upon the two reports of the analyst and those reports themselves provide a defence to the applicant. In these circumstances of the case, I do not find any justification for the conviction, and the revision is therefore accepted and the conviction is set aside and the bail bonds of the accused are ordered to be cancelled. Revision allowed.