SAIF-UR-REHMAN and another vs THE STATE through S.H.O. P.S. Neelor, Islamabad
This petition for post-arrest bail arises from an F.I.R. registered against the petitioners for allegedly preparing adulterated cold drinks, involving charges under the Food Stuffs (Control) Act, 1958, the Pure Food Ordinance, 1960, and sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners were initially denied bail by the Duty Judicial Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the nature of the allegations and the applicability of the relevant statutes. The Court held that the Food Stuffs (Control) Act, 1958 was inapplicable to the facts of the case, and that the relevant provision under the Pure Food Ordinance, 1960 carried a maximum punishment of one year. Furthermore, the Court observed that no adulterated food was actually recovered, and the recovery of other ingredients rendered the case one of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court accepted the petition and granted bail to the petitioners subject to the furnishing of bail bonds.
- Is the Food Stuffs (Control) Act, 1958 applicable to the preparation of adulterated cold drinks?
- Does the absence of recovered adulterated food justify the grant of bail in a case involving alleged food adulteration?
- When does a criminal case regarding food adulteration qualify as a case of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
- Section 3, Food Stuffs (Control) Act, 1958
- Section 6, Food Stuffs (Control) Act, 1958
- Pure Food Ordinance, 1960
- Section 23, Pure Food Ordinance, 1960
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' RIAZ AHMED KHAN, J.---Saif-ur-Rehman and Muhammad Mudassar petitioners have been charged in case F.I.R. No,88 of 2011, dated 6-8-2011, under section 3/6 of Food Stuffs (Control) Act, 1958/ Pure Food Ordinance, 1960, 420/468/471 ,P.P.C., Police Station Neelor, Islamabad.
2. The allegation against the petitioners is that they were found preparing adulterated cold drinks and on the spot gas cylinder, packing machine and other ingredients were recovered from them, hence the present case.
3. The petitioners were refused bail by the learned Duty Judicial Magistrate Section 30 vide order dated 16-8-2011 and then by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Islamabad vide order dated 22-8-2011, hence the present petition.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
5. In the present case, Food Stuffs (Control) Act, 1958 is not applicable, whereas section 23 of the Pure Food Ordinance, 1960 is applicable and the punishment for the offence is one year. No adulterated food was recovered and the recovery of other ingredients would make the case of the petitioners one of further enquiry. In the circumstances, this petition is accepted. Petitioners be released on bail, provided they furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs,1,00,000 each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court.