PLJ 2024 Cr.C. (Note) 90
[Lahore High Court, Lahore]
Present: Farooq Haider, J.
MUHAMMAD ZAFAR IQBAL, etc.--Petitioners
versus
PUNJAB FOOD AUTHORITY, etc.--Respondents
Crl. Misc. No. 77316-B of 2023, decided on 13.12.2023.
Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011 (XVI of 2011)--
----S. 24(a)-- So far as Section 24 of Act ibid is concerned, suffice it to say that on Court’s query it has been apprised by learned Deputy Prosecutor General under instructions of Investigating Officer (present in Court) and after himself going through record that any injury to any person due to aforementioned milk has not been resulted as per available record, therefore, prima facie Section 24(a) of Act ibid is attracted which is hereby reproduced:-
(a) Where unsafe food does not result in injury to any person, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months but which shall not be less than one month and fine which may extend to one million rupees but which shall not be less than one hundred thousand rupees; or [Para 2] A
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--
----S. 497(2)--Punjab Food Authority Act, (XVI of 2011), Ss. 22-A, 23, 24(2), 27 & 28--Post-arrest bail, grant of--Further inquiry--Allegation of possessing transporting and manufacturing adulterer and substandard milk-- Admittedly punishment of Section 24 (a) of Act ibid also does not fall within ambit of prohibition contained in Section: 497, Cr.P.C.--So far as Section 34 of Act ibid is concerned, it has been apprised by learned Deputy Prosecutor General that it is not case of prosecution that present petitioners were already convicted in any offence under this act, therefore, applicability of Section 34 of Act ibid requires further probe/inquiry and falls in purview of sub-section (2) of Section: 497, Cr.P.C. [Para 2] B
Bail--
----Liberty of a person is a precious right which has been aranteed by Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973--By now it is also well settled that it is better to err in granting bail than to err in refusal because ultimate conviction and sentence can repair wrong resulted by a mistaken relief of bail. [Para 2] C
PLD 2022 SC 475.
Pir Muhammad Masood Chishti, Mr. M. Barjees Iftikhar Bhatti and Pir Umair Masood Chishti, Advocates for Petitioners.
Mr. Shabbir Ahmad, Deputy Prosecutor General for State.
Date of hearing: 13.12.2023.
Order
Through instant petition, Muhammad Zafar Iqbal and Tariq (petitioners/accused) have sought post-arrest bail in case arising out of F.I.R. No. 1540/2023 dated 09.11.2023 registered under Sections 22-A, 23, 24, 27, 28, 34 of the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011 at Police Section Qaboola District Pakpattan.
2. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Deputy Prosecutor General and going through the available record with their able assistance, it has been noticed that briefly, as per Crime Report (F.I.R.) got recorded by Ali Ahmad (Food Safety Officer/ complainant), allegation of possessing, transporting and manufacturing adulterated and substandard milk has been levelled against the petitioners. Punishment of the alleged offences under Section 22-A, 23, 27, 28 of the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011 does not fall within the ambit of prohibition contained in Section 497, Cr.P.C. and grant of bail in such like cases is a rule whereas refusal is an exception; learned Deputy Prosecutor General could not refer any imaterial to bring case of the petitioners in said exception; in this regard, “ guidance has been sought from the cases of “Zafar Iqbal versus Muhammad Anwar and others” (2009 SCMR 1488), “Muhammad Daniyal Farrukh Ansari versus The State” (2021 SCMR 557), “Iftikhar Ahmad versus The State” (PLD 2021 Supreme Court 799), “Abdul Saboor versus The State through A.G. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and another” (2022 SCMR 592), “Shahzad versus The State and another” (2023 SCMR 679) and “Muhammad Nawaz alias Karo versus The State” (2023 SCMR 734).
So far as Section 24 of the Act ibid is concerned, suffice it to say that on Court’s query it has been apprised by learned Deputy Prosecutor General under instructions of Investigating Officer (present in Court) and after himself going through the record that any injury to any person due to aforementioned milk has not been resulted as per available record, therefore, prima facie Section 24(a) of the Act ibid is attracted which is hereby reproduced:
(a) Where the unsafe food does not result in injury to any person, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months but which shall not be less than one month and fine which may extend to one million rupees but which shall not be less than one hundred thousand rupees; or
Admittedly punishment of Section 24 (a) of Act ibid also does not fall within the ambit of prohibition contained in Section 497, Cr.P.C. So far as Section 34 of the Act ibid is concerned, it has been apprised by learned Deputy Prosecutor General that it is not the case of prosecution that present petitioners were already convicted in any offence under this act, therefore, applicability of Section 34 of the Act ibid requires further probe/inquiry and falls in the purview of sub- section (2) of Section: 497, Cr.P.C.
Petitioners were arrested in the case on 09.11.2023, sent to jail on 11.11.2023 and are behind the bars since then. Mere detention of the petitioners in jail would serve no useful purpose to the case of prosecution. It is trite law that bail cannot be withheld as advance punishment.
Liberty of a person is a precious right which has been guaranteed by the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. By now it is also well settled that it is better to err in granting bail than to err in refusal because ultimate conviction and sentence can repair the wrong resulted by a mistaken relief of bail; in this regard, case of “Chairman, National Accountability Bureau through P.G., NAB versus Nisar Ahmed Pathan and others” (PLD 2022 Supreme Court 475) can be advantageously referred and its relevant portion from Page No(s).480-481 is reproduced:
“To err in granting bail is better than to err in declining: for the ultimate conviction and sentence of a guilty person can repair the wrong caused by a mistaken relief of bail, but no satisfactory reparation can be offered to an innocent person on his acquittal for his unjustified imprisonment during the trial.”
3. In view of what has been discussed above, instant petition for grant of post arrest bail is accepted and petitioners are admitted to bail in the case subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 200,000/- (Rupees two hundred thousand only) each with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court.
4. It goes without saying that observations mentioned above are just tentative in nature, strictly confined to the disposal of instant bail petition and will have no bearing upon trial of the case, which will be decided on its own merits by the trial Court expeditiously.
(A.A.K.) Bail allowed
0 Comments