1985 P Cr (PLP)

1981 P Cr. L J 576 ref. Muhammad Siddique Chaudhary for Petitioner. Hasnat Ahmad Khan for the State. This is a revision petition against the judgment of an Additional Sessions Judge, dated 23‑9‑1981, partly accepting his appeal, by reducing his sentence to that already undergone with a fine of Rupees Two Hundred (200) in respect of his conviction under section 3/6 of the Food Stuff Control Act 1958. Earlier, the One Man Tribunal appointed under the Food Stuffs Control Act, 1958, had convicted the petitioner under the aforesaid sections and sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rupees Two Thousand (Rs.2,000).

2. According to the prosecution case, a raid was conducted by the Enforcement Staff, Food Department, led by Muhammad Hanif, Food Inspector, on the depot of the petitioner in Sham Nagar, Chauburji, Lahore, where, on checking, it was found that 9.5 kg of wheat flour and 1.4 kg of sugar were short from the stocks of wheat flour and sugar being held by the petitioner.

3. In the summary trial it is alleged that the petitioner admitted his guilt, whereupon he was convicted and sentenced, as stated above.

4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State and have also perused the record. West Pakistan Food Stuffs Distribution Order, 1967, has been framed in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the West Pakistan Food Stuffs Control Act, 1958. Under clause 4 of West Pakistan Food Stuffs Distribution Order, 1967, a District Magistrate can authorise any person to distribute any specified food stuffs. It further provides that the authorisation shall specify the terms and conditions under which such person shall distribute such specified food stuffs to consumers. Clause 7 further provides that the person so authorised shall not sell or dispose of or attempt to sell or dispose of any specified food stuffs, except under the terms and conditions specified in the authorisation. It is stated at the bar that the petitioner allegedly committed the offence charged against, as he violated the terms and conditions specified in the letter of authorisation. The conditions laid down in the letter of authorisation were not put to the petitioner at the time of framing of the charge, or ‑at the time of recording of his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. It cannot, therefore, be said that the accusation was properly put to the petitioner before recording his statement. Moreover, the conviction cannot be sustained as the authorisation letter containing the terms and conditions has not been produced by the prosecution. Learned counsel for the petitioner cited 1981 P Cr. L J 576 in which the conviction recorded under section 188, P.P.C. was set aside on the sole ground that the order of the District Magistrate prohibiting the use of loud speaker was not produced by the prosecution.

5. In view of the above, this petition is accepted and the conviction and sentence of the petitioner is set aside. The fine, if recovered, and sentence of the petitioner is set aside. The fine, if recovered, shall be refunded to the petitioner. M. A. K. Petition accepted.