2006 P Cr (PLP)

SH. JAVAID SARFRAZ, J.

Petitioner Nazar Hussain son of Hakim Ali seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.629 dated 26-12-2004 under sections 272, 273, 420, P.P.C. sections 5(a), 6(l)(a)(b)(c), Pure Food Ordinance, 1960 and Rules, 1965 registered at the Police Station City Burewala District Vehari.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that on 11-11-2004, the complainant Zulfiqar Ali along with Sanitary Inspector raided the Sweets shop of the petitioner (Tariq Sweets) situated at Uri Adda Burewala and took samples of sweets which were sent to the Laboratory. It is alleged in the F.I.R. that according to the Laboratory Report, the sweets which were being sold by the present petitioner were substandard and were not fit for human consumption.

3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for the same occurrence the petitioner was fined Rs.500 which were paid, by him and he cannot be punished twice for the same offence and this amounts to violation of rights as guaranteed under Article 13 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 that all the offences are bailable, therefore, prays for bail.

4. The petition has been vehemently opposed by the learned State Counsel.

5. Complaint under sections 269 and 273, P.P.C. had been filed before the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Burewala, of this occurrence, in which the petitioner was fined Rs.500 which is alleged to have been deposited. The present F.I.R. appears to be outcome of the same occurrence which is not permissible under the law. The petitioner having deposited Rs.500 is not liable to be punished again. All the offences mentioned above except section 23(c) of the Pure Food Ordinance are bailable and in bailable offence, as held by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in PLD 1995 SC 34 that bail is to be granted as a right and not as a grace. Section 23(c) of the Pure Food Ordinance is applicable only when there is a repetition of an offence or for offence of large scale adulteration. The punishment for the above A said section is not less than three years and not more than 5 years and that fine ranging from Rs.5,000 to Rs.1,00,

000. It has not been alleged in the F.I.R. that petitioner has repeated these offences. Needless to add that even this offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause. Even otherwise case of further inquiry has been made out.

6. Under the circumstances ad interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner on 13-4-2005 is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.

7. However, it is made clear that any observation made above shall not affect the merits of the case. H.B.T./N-100/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Bail confirmed.