2006 PLP 1129 (SCMR)

KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.

Zahid Iqbal petitioner was tried by a learned Judicial Magistrate at Lahore for the alleged commission of offences punishable under sections 21-A, 23-A and 26-A of the Agriculture Pesticides Ordinance, 1971. The allegation against the petitioner was that he was found selling a pesticide by the name of Sandaphos without being a valid dealer of the company producing the same, namely, Pakistan Agro Chemical Limited and without being in possession of any invoice issued by the said company. It has also been alleged that the bottles allegedly carrying the said pesticide had never been packed by the above mentioned manufacturing company; had false label pasted on them and further that the registration of the company had been wrongly used by the petitioner. Samples taken from sixty six bottles of the said pesticide recovered from the petitioner were sent for chemical analysis whereupon it was found that the said pesticide was spurious and adulterated. As a result of the trial, Zahid Iqbal petitioner was convicted under section 21(2)(a) of the said Ordinance wherefor he was punished with one year R.I. and a fine of Rs.5,00,

000. He was also convicted under section 23-A of the said Ordinance and punished with two years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,00,

000. The sentences of imprisonment were however, directed to run concurrently. (2). On an appeal filed by him, the conviction recorded against him under section 21(2)(a) of the said Ordinance and the punishment recorded against him therefore were set aside but his conviction under section 23-A of the said Ordinance, 1971 was maintained along with the sentences awarded therefor. This led the petitioner to the Lahore High Court through Criminal Revision Petition No.1105 of 2003 which was dismissed in limine through an order, dated 19-11-2003. (3). Hence, this petition. (4). As has been mentioned above, the samples taken from the pesticide in question recovered from the petitioner were found to be adulterated and substandard. The recovery of the said pesticide from the petitioner had been witnessed by a Deputy District Officer (Agricultural Extension) and by a senior officer of the Pakistan Agro Chemical Limited. The petitioner could not indicate any enmity or ill-will on the part of the said P.Ws, which could have led them to falsely implicate the petitioner-Company in the crime in question. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the specific details of the bottles allegedly carrying the pesticide in question were not put to the petitioner under section 342, Cr.P.C. which was sufficient to invalidate the trial held against him. (5). We have gone through the petitioner statement made under section 342, Cr.P.C. and find that sufficient details of the pesticide in question had been put to the petitioner which were more than enough to notify him of the accusations levelled against him and the evidence which had been produced by the prosecution. The learned counsel could not show any prejudice which could have been caused to the petitioner in the matter of his defence. (6). Having thus examined all aspects of the matter in question and 13 having also examined the consistent findings of guilt recorded against the petitioner by the three learned Courts including the High Court, we find that no exception could be taken either to the findings of guilt recorded against him or to the quantum of punishment awarded to him in the said connection. (7). This petition has, therefore, no merit which is accordingly dismissed. Leave refused. M.H./Z-16/SC Petition dismissed.