1987 PLP 1981 (MLD)

Nemo for Petitioner. Shaukat Hussain for the State. Date of hearing: 14th July, 1987. This is a revision by Muhammad Amin, a milk-seller, against his conviction under section 23(1) of the West Pakistan Pure Food Ordinance (VII of 1960). Brief facts giving rise to this revision are:- On 22-6-1973 at 7 A.M., when Muhammad Amin had ten seers of raw buffalo milk with him for sale, Malik Abdul Majid, Pure Food Inspector, purchased six Chhatanks of milk from him, divided it in three equal parts and sealed them in his presence. He also filled in the requisite declaration form at the spot. One sealed parcel was given to the accused and one sealed parcel was sent to Government Public Analyst, Lahore, for its analysis. On the report of the Govern ment Public Analyst Ex.P.B., 98 per cent deficiency in milk-fats was discovered. On the receipt of the report, a complaint against the accused was lodged before a Court of competent jurisdiction, who tried the accused, found him guilty of the offence, with which he was charged, and sentenced him to undergo three months' R.I. vide its order dated 5-6-1974. Appeal preferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, failed .on 10-6-1974. At the trial, charge was supported by Malik Abdul Majid, Pure Food. Inspector, and the report of Government Public Analyst. Accused pleaded not guilty, but led no evidence in defence. Short question in revision is, whether the conviction on present record is sustainable. As observed above, except for the solitary statement of Pure Food Inspector and the report of Government Public Analyst, there is no, evidence to establish the charge. Statement of the Pure Food Inspector in regard to purchase of milk by him from 'the peti tioner, its division into three equal parts and after having sealed the divided parts and 'sending one of the parcels to the Government Public Analyst, even if established does not prove the 9ffence. Six Chhatanks of milk was purchased. Each parcel, therefore, had two Chhatanks milk in it, viz. four ozs. It is not denied that the "quantity of milk" sent for the analysis of Government Public Analyst did not conform to the required quantity as given in Rule 46 of the West Pakistan Pure Food Rules, 1965. Rule 46 imperatively insists that the quantity of samples to be supplied for the analysis of Government Public Analyst in case of milk shall not be less than eight ozs. As a deficient sample, short of the specified quantity was sent to the Government Public Analyst in violation of the statutory rule, his analysis of that sample is not in accordance with law and the resulting opinion obviously suffers from a defect. His certificate, which is the mainstay of the prosecution, therefore, cannot be accepted as conclusive evidence of the petitioner's guilt. See Muhammad Shah v. The State P L D 1966 (W.P.) Pesh.

184. Both the Courts have overlooked this patent illegality, which went to the root of the matter. Therefore, conviction recorded on the basis of the certificate of the Government Public Analyst, which was the only evidence in this case, cannot be maintained. Learned State counsel also conceded to this proposition. For the foregoing reasons, this revision is accepted and conviction recorded against the petitioner is set aside M.Y.H./M-321/L Petition accepted.