2012 PLP 77 (MLD)
SAIF-UR-REHMAN and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE through S.H.O. P.S. Neelor, Islamabad — Respondent
| Citation | 2012 PLP 77 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Islamabad |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SAIF-UR-REHMAN and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE through S.H.O. P.S. Neelor, Islamabad — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 77 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 PLP 77 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Islamabad bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 77 (MLD) (SAIF-UR-REHMAN and another — Petitioners Versus THE STATE through S.H.O. P.S. Neelor, Islamabad — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Rizwan Abbasi and Anwar-ul-Haq Butt for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
West Pakistan Pure Food Ordinance (VII of 1960), S.23
West Pakistan Foodstuffs (Control) Act (XX of 1958), Ss.3 & 6--Preparing adulterated drinks
Allegation against accused persons was that they were found preparing adulterated cold drinks
Section 23, West Pakistan Pure Food Ordinance, 1960 and not West Pakistan Foodstuffs (Control) Act, 1958 was applicable in the case and the punishment for the offence under S.23 of the Ordinance was one year
No adulterated food was recovered and recovery of other ingredients would make the case of accused persons one of further enquiry
Judgment & Decree
RIAZ AHMED KHAN, J.
Saif-ur-Rehman and Muhammad Mudassar petitioners have been charged in case F.I.R. No.88 of 2011, dated 6-8-2011, under section 3/6 of Food Stuffs (Control) Act, 1958/ Pure Food Ordinance, 1960, 420/468/471 ,P.P.C., Police Station Neelor, Islamabad.
2. The allegation against the petitioners is that they were found preparing adulterated cold drinks and on the spot gas cylinder, packing machine and other ingredients were recovered from them, hence the present case.
3. The petitioners were refused bail by the learned Duty Judicial Magistrate Section 30 vide order dated 16-8-2011 and then by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad vide order dated 22-8-2011, hence the present petition.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
5. In the present case, Food Stuffs (Control) Act, 1958 is not applicable, whereas section 23 of the Pure Food Ordinance, 1960 is applicable and the punishment for the offence is one year. No adulterated food was recovered and the recovery of other ingredients would make the case of the petitioners one of further enquiry. In the circumstances, this petition is accepted. Petitioners be released on bail, provided they furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court. H.B.T./53/Isl Bail granted.