1991 PLP 1785 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD ISHAQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1785 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ISHAQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1785 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1785 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1785 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD ISHAQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Anwar Bhinder for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 6/23/1(a)
Sample of milk for analysis was sent after thirteen days
Accused had purchased milk from others and there was nothing in evidence to show that accused knew or had reasons to believe that milk was of sub-standard quality
Witnesses in whose presence sample was taken, were not produced
Conviction and sentence of accused was set aside and he was acquitted of the charge.
Judgment & Decree
S. 6/23/1(a)
Sample of milk for analysis was sent after thirteen days
Accused had purchased milk from others and there was nothing in evidence to show that accused knew or had reasons to believe that milk was of sub-standard quality
Witnesses in whose presence sample was taken, were not produced
Conviction and sentence of accused was set aside and he was acquitted of the charge. Ch. Muhammad Anwar Bhinder for Petitioner. Altaf-ur-Rehman for the State. Date of hearing: 4th March, 1991. The petitioner stands convicted under section 6/23/1(a) of the West Pakistan Pure Food Ordinance, 1960, and sentenced to eight months' R.I. and a fine of Rs.3,000, in default thereof four months' R.I.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I feel inclined to set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioner for the reasons that there was a delay of thirteen days in sending the sample of milk for analysis; that from the evidence, it appears that the milk was purchased by the petitioner from others and there is nothing in evidence to show that he knew or had reasons to believe that the milk was of substandard quality 'and the witnesses, in whose presence the sample was taken were not produced.
3. For what has been said above, the revision is accepted. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner is set aside. He is acquitted of the charge. He is on bail. He stands discharged of his bail bond. M.A.K./M-3004/L Revision accepted.