MUHAMMAD AJMAL and another vs STATE and another
This petition for pre-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 619/2017, involving allegations under the Agricultural Pesticide Ordinance, 1971, regarding the possession of expired pesticides with allegedly forged labels. The petitioners, a storekeeper and a regional manager, contended that the seized samples qualified under government analysis standards. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the nature of the allegations and the status of the investigation. The Court held that the determination of whether the petitioners were responsible for the forged labels or if the responsibility lay elsewhere required a full trial. Furthermore, the Court noted that the warehouse owner had not been investigated, and the purpose of storing the expired pesticides—whether for sale or destruction—remained a matter of further inquiry. Finding that the petitioners' arrest was unnecessary and that mala fide intent on the part of the complainant could not be ruled out, the Court confirmed the ad interim pre-arrest bail, establishing that where recovery is not required and mala fide is apparent, pre-arrest bail is appropriate.
- Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted when the purpose of storing expired goods remains a matter of further inquiry?
- Does the failure to associate the warehouse owner with the investigation support a finding of mala fide against the complainant?
- Is pre-arrest bail appropriate when the recovered samples meet government quality standards and no further recovery is required from the accused?
- Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 21(A), Agricultural Pesticide Ordinance 1971
- Section 23(a), Agricultural Pesticide Ordinance 1971
- Section 26-A, Agricultural Pesticide Ordinance 1971
ORDER
Through instant petition under Section 498, Cr.P.C., petitioners Muhammad Ajmal and Nadeem Ahmed Khan has sought the premium of bail before arrest in case FIR No, 619 dated 17.8.2017, in respect of offences under Sections 21(A) & 23(a) of the Agriculture Pesticide Ordinance, 1971 amended 1997, Rules 1973 and Sections 21A & 26-A of the Agricultural Pesticide Ordinance, 1971 amended 1997, 2012 & Rules 1973, registered at Police Station, Muzaffarabad District Multan.
2. The allegation against the petitioners, as contained in the FIR, is that on 17.8.2017 the complainant being an Assistant Director Pest Warning & Quality Control of Pesticides, Multan had conducted raid at the store situated at E-1, Industrial Estate, Multan where the petitioner was present having expired 260-packets of Chlorfenapyer 36% SC with the forged label of Imporer as Hextar Chemical Enterprises, new Garden Town, Lahore. The complainant had separated samples from three other pesticide for analysis for which the Storekeeper could not produce legal documents.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Deputy Prosecutor General and have perused the record.
4. Bare perusal of the crime report shows that Petitioner No, I/Muhammad Ajmal being store- keeper and Petitioner No, 2/Nadeem Ahmed Khan being Regional Manager are named in the crime report alongwith one Rehram Ratan Shah (CEO) R.B. Avari with the allegation that they had used the fake label of Hextar Chemicals Enterprises, New Garden Twon, Lahore. The report with regard to the samples sent by the complainant to the Government Analyst has been received with the result of "Qualifies", which is according to the required standard. So far as the allegation of using the fake labels of aforesaid company is concerned, during investigation the representative of the Hextar Chemical enterprises had disowned their label on the bottles in question but the said company did not opt to initiate proceeding against the owner of warehouse i,e, M/s. R.B. Avari Enterprises, Multan.
It is yet to be determined whether the representative of Hextar Enterprises was shifting the responsibility upon the shoulders of the present petitioners or actually they had , delivered the pesticides in issue, which can only be determined by the learned Trial Court after recording the evidence. It is also the matter . of further probe and inquiry that the expired pesticides in issue had been stored for the purpose of sale or its destruction. It has been admitted by all hands that the owner of the said warehouse had not been associated with the investigation of this case. In the peculiar circumstances, of the case, mala fide and ulterior motive on part of the complainant to falsely implicate the.petitioners in this case cannot be ruled out of consideration. Nothing is required to be recovered from the petitioners and insistence of the Investigating Officer upon their arrest appears to be unnecessary and, thus, smacking of bad faith.
In view of what has been discussed above, the petition in hand is allowed and the concession of ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to the petitioner stands confirmed subject to their furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs, 100,000/- (one lac) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.