ZAHID IQBAL vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the conviction of the petitioner, Zahid Iqbal, for offences under the Agriculture Pesticides Ordinance, 1971. The petitioner was accused of selling spurious and adulterated pesticides without valid authorization or invoices. Following a trial, the petitioner was convicted under sections 21(2)(a) and 23-A of the Ordinance, receiving sentences of imprisonment and fines. While an appellate court set aside the conviction under section 21(2)(a), it maintained the conviction and sentence under section 23-A, a decision subsequently upheld by the Lahore High Court in revision. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the trial was invalidated because specific details of the pesticide bottles were not put to him during his examination under section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, finding that sufficient details were provided to the petitioner to notify him of the accusations and evidence. Finding no prejudice caused to the petitioner's defence and noting consistent findings of guilt by the lower courts, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal.
- Does a failure to put specific details of evidence to an accused during a section 342 statement automatically invalidate a trial?
- What is the standard for determining whether an omission in a section 342 statement causes prejudice to an accused?
- Can a conviction be sustained under the Agriculture Pesticides Ordinance 1971 when the accused is found in possession of adulterated and substandard pesticides?
- Section 21-A, Agriculture Pesticides Ordinance 1971
- Section 23-A, Agriculture Pesticides Ordinance 1971
- Section 26-A, Agriculture Pesticides Ordinance 1971
- Section 21(2)(a), Agriculture Pesticides Ordinance 1971
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' 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 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 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.