1977 P Cr (PLP)

Syed Afzal Haider for Petitioner. Malik Muhammad Khan for the State. This is an application by Ghulam Muhammad, under section 561‑A, Cr. P. C. for the quashment of proceedings under section 6(1) of the West Pakistan (Pure Food) Ordinance, 1960, pending in the Court of Resident Magistrate, Kot Addu. District Muzaffargarh.

2. The petitioner is a milk‑seller and the allegation against him is that a sample taken from him by the Food Inspector was not found to conform with the prescribed standard and it was opined by the Public Analyst that it had been adulterated.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that according to section 20 read with rule 44 of the said Act, the sample taken by the Food Inspector was to be divided into three portions; one to be sent to the Public Analyst, the second to be given to the accused person and the third to be retained for future comparison. He then referred to rule 46 of the West Pakistan Pure Food Ordinance, which prescribed that the quantity of sample to be supplied to the Public Analyst in the case of milk, shall not be less than 8 oz. He also referred to Annexure `C' (which is copy of the form tilled by the Food Inspector when he took the sample). According to it the quantity of milk taken as sample was 1 pao (i. e. 12 oz). If this quantity is divided into three parts as required by rule 44, each sample would be of only 4 oz. which is half the quantity prescribed by rule

46. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that proper analysis of milk cannot be made by examining such small quantity. In support of this contention he referred to Ghulam Muhammad v. State (P L D 1976 Lah. 720) wherein it was observed as follows:‑ "Rule 46 of the West Pakistan Pure Food Rules, 1965, framed under the afore‑mentioned Ordinance provides that the quantity of sample to be supplied for analysis to the Public Analyst in the case of milk shall not be less than 8 ounces. It was held in the case of Muhammad Shah v. State P L D 1966 Pesh. 184 that if the specified quantity of sample was not sent to the public analyst in voilation of rules, his analysis of that sample was not in accordance with law and the resulting opinion obvi ously suffered from a defect due to which his certificate could not be accepted as conclusive proof of the petitioner's guilt"

4. Respectfully following the above‑noted observations I accept this/, application and quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner. Proceedings quashed.