2019 P Cr (PLP)
Ch. ASHIQ ALI — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2019 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Ch. ASHIQ ALI — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2019 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2019 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2019 P Cr (PLP) (Ch. ASHIQ ALI — Petitioner Versus The STATE and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- K.H. Tahir Hashmi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 498
Punjab Fertilizers (Control) Order (VII of 1973), S.18(1)
Punjab Essential Articles (Control) Act (XVII of 1973), Ss. 6(1) & 10(1)
Sale of adulterated and fake fertilizers
Ad-interim pre-arrest bail, confirmation of
Effect
Allegation against the petitioner (a fertilizer dealer) was that the sample of fertilizer, taken in his presence, was found unfit/adultered after examination
Petitioner was, admittedly, a dealer of fertilizer and not a manufacturer
Prosecution had not alleged that bags from which sample were procured by the raiding party were lying open in the shop of the petitioner and were not sealed bags and the petitioner was used to sell them (bags) as received
Section 6(1) of the Punjab Essential Articles (Control) Act, 1973 stipulated punishment for the contravention of any notified order up to three years or with fine which would not be less than the value of essential articles in respect of which the order had been contravened or both
Since alternate sentence of fine had also been provided, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to concession of bail on the said ground alone
Record/query revealed that manufacturer or owner of the factory who had produced the fertilizer-in-question had not been associated or inquired about the substandard fertilizer which meant that Investigating Agency had not to investigate the real culprits
Investigation was already complete in the present case and the prosecution had already collected the evidence, so sending the petitioner behind the bars would not serve any beneficial purpose to the prosecution
Ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner was confirmed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD WAHEED KHAN, J.
Apprehending arrest at the hands of local police, petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.437 dated 30.12.2018, registered under section 18(1) of the Punjab Fertilizers (Control) Order, 1973 and sections 6(1) and 10(1) of the Punjab Essential Articles (Control) Act, 1973 at Police Station Chuchak, District Okara.
2. Ch. Muhammad Afzal Tahir, Assistant Director/complainant of the instant FIR has put the machinery of law into motion alleging therein that on 20.10.2018 at about 01:00 p.m. he along with Talib Hussain, Field Assistant, Naseer Ahmad, Baildar and Ghulam Murtza, Driver conducted raid at Dar ul Ehsan Traders Chak No.36/AGD and took sample of fertilizer in presence of petitioner and the said fertilizer was found unfit-adulterated after its examination, hence the instant petition.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the record it reveals that there is no denial to this fact that the petitioner is nominated in the FIR, however this Court has to see from the facts and circumstances whether the case against him to the extent of grant of relief prayed for is made out or not. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is a dealer of fertilizer and not a manufacturer. It is also not the case of the prosecution that bags from which sample were procured by the raiding party were lying open in the shop of the petitioner rather these were sealed bags and the petitioner used to sell the same as it received. According to section 6(1) of the said Act punishment for the contravention of any notified order is up to three years or with fine which shall not be less than the value of essential articles in respect of which the order has been contravened or both.
4. Since alternate sentence of fine has also been provided, therefore, petitioner is entitled to concession of bail on this ground alone. Moreover, as alleged in the FIR the petitioner is a fertilizer dealer and he was found having substandard fertilizer but at the same time it is admitted fact that he is not the manufacturer of the said fertilizer. When this situation was confronted to Ch. Muhammad Afzal Tahir/complainant and the Investigating Officer, present in Court whether the manufacturer or owner of the factory who produced the above said fertilizer has been associated or inquired about the substandard fertilizer the answer is in negative, which means that Investigating Agency has never bothered to investigate the real culprits. The investigation is already complete in the instant case and the prosecution has already collected the evidence, so sending the petitioner behind the bars would not serve any beneficial purpose to the prosecution.
5. For what has been discussed above, the instant petition is hereby allowed and ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to petitioner by this Court vide order dated 05.03.2019 is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two lacs) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court. MQ/A-29/L Bail confirmed.