Ali Sher vs The State, etc.
This criminal petition concerns an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Ali Sher, who was implicated in a case registered under Section 21(2)(b) of the Pesticide Ordinance, 1971, following the alleged recovery of substandard pesticides from his shop. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, a dealer selling sealed products provided by a manufacturer, was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the nature of the offence and the completion of the investigation. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail, confirming the ad-interim pre-arrest bail previously granted. The Court reasoned that the petitioner merely sold sealed commodities provided by a manufacturer under warranty, and there was no evidence of tampering or active wrongdoing at the time of the raid. Furthermore, the Court noted that the maximum punishment for the alleged offence is three years, which does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court determined that the petitioner's culpability required trial adjudication rather than pre-trial incarceration.
- Is a dealer who sells sealed, manufacturer-warranted products liable for the substandard quality of those products under the Pesticide Ordinance 1971?
- Does an offence punishable by a maximum of three years' imprisonment fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Should pre-arrest bail be granted when the investigation is complete and the accused is no longer required for further investigation?
- Section 21(2)(b), Pesticide Ordinance 1971
- Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' AALIA NEELUM, J. --- Through this petition, Ali Sher petitioner has sought pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R.
No, 269, dated 9.7.2013 registered under Section 21(2)(b) of Pesticide Ordinance, 1971 at Police Station Chak Bedi, District Pakpattan Sharif.
2. F.I.R. Was registered on the statement of Maqsood Ahmad, Deputy District Officer, Agriculture, Pakpattan by stating that raid was conducted on the shop of Ali Sher who was running his business in the name and style of M/s. Ali Hamza Zari Corporation and substandard pesticides were recovered from possession of the petitioner, samples were prepared and the same were sent to the laboratory for analysis and after receipt of report, the case was registered.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is a dealer of Allied Agro Links and sells fertilizer; that he is neither a producer nor a manufacturer; that according to law if the pesticide products are found to be substandard or not according to the relevant law, the proceedings should be initiated against the manufacturers or importers who manufactured or imported the above-said products; that the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. And at the most punishable for three years' R.I.; that the investigation is complete and he is no more required for investigation and as such the petitioner is entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.
4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Prosecutor General has vehemently opposed the bail petition by submitting that it was the petitioner who was in possession of substandard pesticides and owner of the said medicines and as such he is not entitled to any exception.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
6. It is the prosecution case that substandard pesticides were recovered from possession of the petitioner which were lying in his shop but there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was selling spurious medicines at the relevant time. The record reflects that the petitioner was provided pesticides by the company under a sealed cover with warranty card and he sells those commodities in sealed condition and he never tempered the same. There is nothing on record to show that he is not a dealer of Allied Agro Links, manufacturer of the said pesticides. The investigation is complete) and he is no more required for further investigation. Maximum punishment for offence is three years which does not fall within prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. In the given circumstances, involvement of the petitioner can only be determined after recording of evidence before the learned Trial Court and no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner in jail at this stage.
7. Consequently, this petition is accepted and pre-arrest bail already allowed to the petitioner is confirmed subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.
Ad-interim pre-arrest .