1989 P Cr (PLP)

Date of hearing: 18th January, 1989. Vide F.I.R. No. 259 dated 5‑12‑1980 Police Station Sangla Hill registered a case against the petitioners on the charge under section 3/6 Foodstuffs Control Act, 1958 and for the violation of Food Grains Licensing Order, 1957.

2. The case was got registered by the officials of the Food Department, and precisely, it was alleged in the F.I.R., that officials of the Food Department had received an information, that the petitioners were indulging into the black-marketing of the paddy. On the receipt of this information, a raid was conducted, and it was found that about 862 maunds paddy was lying in the premises of Sheikh Ibrahim. The aforesaid paddy was taken into custody. After the preparation of the challan, the same was submitted in the Court of the learned Assistant Commissioner at Sheikhupura, and two witnesses, namely, Shah Nawaz and Muhammad Afzal from the Food Department were examined.

3. Statements of both the above witnesses have been perused. They have admitted after the registration of the case that the paddy growers had moved applications Exhs. D. 1/2 and D.3, in which it was alleged, that the paddy did not belong to the petitioners, but was owned by the growers, and they had brought the same at the premises of the petitioners.

4. The petitioners had moved an application under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C., but the same was dismissed, and the learned Assistant Commissioner while disposing of the same, observed, that some obliging concession had been made by both these witnesses, it was further observed, that further evidence was yet to be recorded.

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, dated 2‑3‑1981 the petitioners filed a revision petition, and the same was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Sheikhupura vide order, dated 4‑5‑1981.

6. This petition under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C., has been moved seeking quashment of the aforesaid proceedings.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned, A.A.G. at length. I have also examined the relevant provisions of law and also the licence, which had been issued to the petitioners. Under the terms of the aforesaid licence, the holder can store, keep and sell the paddy. Assuming that the claim of the growers was not correct, even then, on the face of the allegations levelled against the petitioners, no offence seems to have been committed, because the petitioners under the terms of the licence issued to them had all the authority to store the paddy. This aspect of the case is not so relevant, inasmuch as, officials of the Food Department after having held an enquiry had concluded that the paddy belonged to the growers. In this view of the matter, fate of this case rests upon the claim of the paddy growers. After the registration of the case, a detailed enquiry was conducted, in which, it was found that the case was registered in haste, and in fact, the paddy belonged to the growers. Observations of the learned Assistant Commissioner that the witnesses had made obliging concession is far fetched, because the witnesses had stated nothing but truth, and it was their duty to depose to that effect as officials of the Department.

8. Mr. Najam‑uz‑Zaman, the learned Assistant Advocate‑General states, that the evidence is still to be recorded, therefore, the proceedings should not he quashed. I am afraid, that the contention has no force, because the remaining witnesses are recovery witnesses, or are those, who had accompanied the officials at the time of the raid.

9. Upshot of the above discussion is that the prosecution has no legs to stand upon. Resultantly, this petition is allowed, and the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners are quashed. H.B.T./C‑32/L Proceedings quashed.