--Pre-arrest bail--Allowed--Recovery of bags of wheat in possession of petitioner--Tentative assessment--Statement of investigation officer--

 PLJ 2023 Lahore (Note) 120
[Multan Bench, Multan]
Present: Sadiq Mahmud Khurram, J.
MUHAMMAD AKBAR--Petitioner
versus
STATE and another--Respondents
W.P. No. 7012 of 2023, decided on 29.5.2023.

Punjab Foodstuff (Control) Act, 1958 (XX of 1958)--

----Ss. 3 & 6--Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act, 1977--Pre-arrest bail--Allowed--Recovery of bags of wheat in possession of petitioner--Tentative assessment--Statement of investigation officer--Nothing more is to be recovered from possession of petitioner--Verification of version of petitioner by investigation officer--The Investigating Officer of case, submits that nothing more is to be recovered from possession of petitioner--When nothing more is to be recovered from possession of petitioner, no useful purpose would be served by sending petitioner behind bars--The Investigating Officer has already verified versions of complainant as well as petitioner during investigation of case--In view of peculiar circumstances of case, sending petitioner behind bars at this stage, would cause irreparable loss to his reputation and would serve no useful purpose--Petition allowed.          [Para 4] A

Mr. Muhammad Faisal Bashir Ahmed Chaudhary, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Chohan, Assistant Advocate General for State.

Date of hearing: 29.5.2023.

Order

Through the instant petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner namely Muhammad Akbar, seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No. 439 of 2023 dated 01.05.2023, registered in respect of offences under Sections 3 and 6 of the Punjab Food Stuff (Control) Act, 1958 (XX of 1958) and Section 3 of the Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act, 1977 (XXIX of 1977), at the Police Station Saddar Chichawatni, District Sahiwal.

2. The allegations against the petitioner namely Muhammad Akbar, culled from the evidential material produced before the Court, are that he was found in possession of 250 bags of wheat.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and leamed Assistant Advocate General and perused the record with their able assistance.

4. This is a pre-arrest bail and only a tentative assessment of the evidentiary material produced before the Court can be made at this stage. It is noticeable that the F.I.R. has been registered with regard to Section 3 of the Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act, 1977 (XXIX of 1977), whereas the Section 3 of the Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act, 1977 (XXIX of 1977) is not a penal section at all and does not provide any punishment for any commiting any act rather it is Section 7 of the Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act, 1977 (XXIX of 1977) which provides that it is an offence if the provisions of Section 3 of the Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act, 1977 (XXIX of 1977) are violated but despite this fact no offence under Section 7 of the Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act, 1977 (XXIX of 1977), is being investigated, which itself is denuding the lax manner in which the Investigating Officer of the case is proceeding with the investigation of the case. With regard to the other offences being investigated under Sections 3 and 6 of the Punjab Food Stuff (Control) Act, 1958 (XX of 1958), it is observed that the act which has been made punishable under Section 6 of the Punjab Food Stuff (Control) Act, 1958 (XX of 1958) is the act of contravention of any order made under Section 3 of the Punjab Food Stuff (Control) Act, 1958 (XX of 1958). It is necessary that while exercising the powers under Section 3 of the Punjab Food Stuff (Control) Act, 1958 (XX of 1958), the Government has to notify such exercise of powers, however, during the investigation of the present case, no copy of such Notification of the Government as issued under Section 3 of the Punjab Food Stuff (Control) Act, 1958 (XX of 1958), has been appended with the record of the investigation. In this manner, when there does not exist any prima facie, proof that a Notification has been issued by the Government exercising its powers under Section 3 of the Punjab Food Stuff (Control) Act, 1958 (XX of 1958), then the question as to whether the petitioner can be liable for violation of such order as mandatory under Section 6 of the Punjab Food Stuff (Control) Act, 1958 (XX of 1958), is the question which needs further determination by the learned trial Court, however, at present it raises a doubt with regard to the liability of the petitioner with regard to the offence made punishable under Section 6 of the Punjab Food Stuff (Control) Act, 1958 (XX of 1958). The complainant of the case, present before the Court, submits that the (Government had issued 100 bags containing wheat to the petitioner, however, he has returned only 60 bags. In this manner, the petitioner is directed to return the 40 bags containing wheat to the Food Inspector, immediately. The Investigating Officer of the case, submits that nothing more is to be recovered from the possession of the petitioner. When nothing more is to be recovered from the possession of the petitioner, no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars. The Investigating Officer has already verified the versions of the complainant as well as the petitioner during the investigation of the case. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, sending the petitioner behind the bars at this stage, would cause irreparable loss to his reputation and would serve no useful purpose. Reliance is placed on the case of “Khalil Ahmad Soomro and others v. The State” (PLD 2017 SC 730) wherein the following principle has been enunciated:

“Although for grant of pre-arrest bail one of the pre conditions is that the accused person has to show that his arrest is intended by the prosecution out of mala fide and for ulterior consideration. At pre-arrest bail stage, it is difficult to prove the element of mala fide by the accused through positive/solid evidence/ materials and the same is to be deduced and inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case and if some events-hints to that effect are available, the same would validly constitute the element of mala fide.”

5. In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed and ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner, by this Court, vide order dated 15.05.2023, is confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-(Rupees two hundred thousand only) with one surety, in the like amount, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.

6. It is clarified that the observations enumerated are absolutely tentative in nature and restricted only to the extent of this particular petition, having no nexus and relevance with the trial, which shall be concluded quite independently and purely on merit.

(Y.A.)  Petition allowed