1992 P Cr (PLP)

Date of hearing: 19th October, 1991. This order will dispose of Criminal Revisions Nos.206 of 1991 and 207 of 1991 moved by Saif‑ul‑Islam petitioner.

2. According to the petitioner he is a distributor of milk processed and packed by Messrs Pakistan Dairies Limited, Sahiwal and distributes the sealed cartons of milk to the local dealers and retailers in the same packed and sealed state. On 28‑11‑1990 Food Inspector of Lahore Municipal Corporation obtained the sample of milk distributed by him and sent it to the Laboratory for analysis. The Analyst reported that it was not of the nature, substance or quality, which it purported or represented to be. He was accordingly challaned. He confessed his guilt before the Special Food Magistrate, Zone VI, Metropolitan Corporation, Lahore who by his judgment, dated 12‑12‑19990 convicted him under section 23 of the Pure Food Ordinance, 1960 and sentenced him to one month's R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.1,030 or in default to undergo one month's R.I. in each case. He preferred appeals which were dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore on 13‑4‑1991. However, the learned Judge gave the benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. to the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved he has filed revisions in this Court.

3. It is contended that under the law a dealer/distributor cannot be held responsible for any defect in the food, if he sells it in the same packed and scaled state in which he receives the same, that the so‑called confessional statement was only to the extent that the Laboratory analysits revealed deficiency in the fat contents and nothing beyond it but the Courts below erroneously interpreted it to mean that he had owned his responsibility for the deficiency in fat contents.

4. Admittedly, the petitioner was an agent of the manufacturer and was selling milk in the same state in which it was supplied to him. He had no reason to believe that the food was not of such a nature, substance or quality as required. Section 28(2) provides that the seller shall not be deemed to have committed offence under the Pure Food Ordinance, 1960 if he proves:‑‑ (a) that the food sold was purchased or obtained as agent by him as being of the same nature, substance or quality as that demanded by the purchaser and with written warranty to the effect that it was of such nature, substance or quality; (b) that he had no reason to believe at the time when he sold it that the food was not of such nature, substance or quality as required; and (c) that he sold it in the same state in which he purchased it. There is no rebuttal to the assertion of the petitioner that he was selling the milk in the same packed state in which he had received it from the manufacturer. Furthermore, there is nothing to indicate to what extent the milk was deficient in fat contents. It was necessary to determine the quantum A of sentence. For the above‑mentioned reasons, the petitioner cannot be held liable for the alleged offence. Accordingly, I accept the revisions filed by him, set aside his conviction and sentence and acquit him of the charge. He is on bail and is discharged from the bail bonds. N.H.Q./S‑86/L ??????????? Revisions accepted.