1979 P Cr (PLP)

Art. 199 read with Martial Law Regulation, 1977 [C. M. L. A.'s] No. 30--Evidence, appreciation of

Petitioner proceeded under M. L. R. 30 for his alleged preparing adulterated and substandard grease and mobile oil which according to Chemical Analyser not found in accordance with specifications

Petitioner not denying raiding of his-premises by a. Magistrate but contending that grease found from his possession not adulterated or substandard-Nothing on record to show that unauthorized substance added or mixed with grease as contemplated by M. L. R. 30-Mere fact that grease found to be substandard and not according to specification, held, does not prove it adulterated-.-Conviction tend sentence set aside in circumstances. Syed Farooq Hassan for Petitioner. Rashid Aziz, A. A. G. for "the State. Date of bearing: 26th May, 1979. This judgment will also dispose of Writ Petition No. 1511 of 1979 as similar points of law and facts are involved in both the cases. Further the evidence made basis for decision of both the cases is the same. Both the petitioners were charged for preparing adulterated and substandard grease and mobile oil. The respective premises were raided by a raiding party headed by a Magistrate on 5th of June, 1978 at Faisalabad. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1510 of 1979 was not present at his house at the time when the raid was conducted. Samples were taken of the grease prepared at his factory for the purpose of sale. Adulterated grease and mobile oil was found in possession of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1511 of 1979. Samples were taken by the raiding party and according to the Chemical Analysis they were not according to the specifi cation. Both the petitioners were, therefore, proceeded against under M. L. R.

30. The prosecution has examined as many as 7 witnesses in each case in order to prove that the respective premises of both the petitioners were raided and adulterated and substandard grease and mobile oil was found which was later on proved to be substandard. So far as the raid on the premises is concerned it is not denied by the petitioners. Their only contention is that the grease found from their respective premises is not adulterated or substandard.

2. The most important witness to prove the charge against the petitioners has been examined as D. W.

1. He is Dr. Shafique Ahmad Khan, Incharge Oil Fats, Vaxes, Research Division, P.C.S.I.R, Laboratories, Lahore. He examined the samples taken in both the cases by the raiding party. He has stated that as many as 33 samples alongwith the list of manufacturers showing their names, were received by him. According to his report some of the samples were of substandard specifi cation whereas some were standard. In the case of Writ Petition No. 1510 of 1979 samples Nos. 2, 7 and 8 belonging to the accused did not conform to the standard specification. At the end of his statement in both the cases he has stated that it is correct to say that according to him anything, which is substandard must be adulterated.

3. According to M. L. R. 30 no one shall adulterate or mix with any unauthorised substance, in any manner whatsoever, any type of fuel, gas or lubricant which can be used in any type of engine or machine nor sell or offer or expose for sale any type of adulterated or mixed fuel, gas, lubricant. In the explanation under clause (6) of para. 2 of the regulation it is stated that for the purpose of this Regulation the expres sion "adulterate or mix", shall mean to add in any manner whatsoever, any unauthorised substance in any fuel, gas, lubricant in contravention of any Order, Rule or Regulation. According to the explanation adulteration or mixing would mean addition of any unauthorised substance in gas or lubricant. There is nothing on record to show as per statement of C. W. 1 that any unauthorised substance has been added to or mixed with the grease found from the possession of both the petitioners. It is correct that C. W. 1 has stated in his cross-examination that any chemical, which is adulterated must be substandard. He has however, not said a word as to whether any unauthorised substance was otherwise added to or mixed with the grease by both the petitioners. The opinion of C. W. 1 to the effect that some of the samples of grease were sub standard means that they had not been prepared according to specification. It does not necessarily mean that they were substandard because of addition or mixing of unauthorised substance with the grease. In order to prove the case under M. L. R. 30 it was necessary for the prosecution to bring on record that so and so unauthorised substance had been added or mixed with the grease and for that reason it was adulterated. The mere fact that the grease in question has been found to be substandard and not according in the specification does not prove that it is adul terated. If the petitioners in both the cases have not used all the necessary ingredients while preparing the grease the same cannot be said to be according to the specification. It will certainly be substandard for that reason. It however, would not mean that any unauthorised substance has been added or mixed with that unless otherwise shown in the Chemical Analysis. As such I don't find sufficient material on record connecting both the petitioners with the offence alleged to have been committed by them. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment as We, as of fine awarded to both the petitioners in both the writ petitions, is therefore set aside.

4. Both the petitions are accepted without any order as to costs. Both the petitioners would be released forthwith if not required in any' other case.