Maqsood Sadiq vs The State
This criminal revision petition challenges the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner under the Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act, 1977, for failing to display a price list. The petitioner was initially convicted by the Magistrate and sentenced to 90 days of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 70,000, which was upheld on appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the sentence imposed was proportionate given that it was the petitioner's first offense and there was no evidence of actual sales exceeding the controlled price. Upon review, the Court upheld the conviction but exercised its discretion to modify the sentence. The Court reduced the imprisonment to the period already undergone by the petitioner and significantly reduced the fine from Rs. 70,000 to Rs. 7,000. The principle established is that while a conviction for a regulatory offense under the Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act, 1977 remains valid, the sentencing should be proportionate to the nature of the offense, particularly for first-time offenders where no actual profiteering is proven.
- Can a court reduce a sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone for a first-time offense under the Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act 1977?
- Is a conviction under the Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act 1977 sustainable where there is no evidence of actual sales above the controlled price?
- Section 3/7, Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act 1977
ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, J. - The petitioner was convicted under section 3/7 of the Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act, 1977 and sentenced to 90 days' S.I. And a fine of Rs.
70,000/- or in default whereof to undergo further S.I. For 7 days vide judgment dated 05.11.2003 handed down by the learned DDOR/Magistrate, 1st Glass, Faisalabad.
2- The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad in appeal upheld the findings of the Trial Court vide judgment dated 27.02.2004.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated before this Court that the petitioner was neither owner of the Mill nor an employee but was just sitting there and no one heard him to understand that he had any connection with the sale.
4. Anyway after arguing the case the learned counsel for the petitioner volunteered to take an alternate plea. According to him, this was the first offence of the petitioner on mere allegation that a price list was not displayed. But there was no evidence on the file to show any actual sale taking place beyond the controlled price. That the petitioner has also suffered incarceration although it was short one but, of course, there was rigors of trial and this was enough punishment for him.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate- General, this Court comes to the conclusion that whereas the order of conviction is upheld, the sentence is reduced from the one already undergone by him. The sentence of fine is reduced from 70,000/- to 7,000/-, which will be paid in a week's time. In case of non-payment, the petitioner will be taken into custody for undergoing the sentence against the fine. The matter is disposed of accordingly. A copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, for information and necessary action.