Ch. Ashiq Ali vs The State etc
This petition for pre-arrest bail arises from FIR No. 437 dated 30.12.2018, registered under Sections 18(1) of the Punjab Fertilizers (Control) Order 1973 and Sections 6(1) and 10(1) of the Punjab Special Article Control Act, 1973. The petitioner, a fertilizer dealer, was accused of possessing adulterated fertilizer after a raid by the complainant. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to pre-arrest bail given that he was a dealer rather than a manufacturer, and the seized bags were sealed. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail, confirming the ad-interim pre-arrest bail previously granted. The ratio of the decision rests on the fact that the statute provides for an alternate sentence of a fine, and the prosecution failed to investigate the actual manufacturer of the substandard fertilizer. The Court established the principle that where the investigation is complete and the accused is a dealer of sealed goods rather than the manufacturer, incarceration serves no beneficial purpose, particularly when the relevant statute allows for a fine as an alternative to imprisonment.
- Is a fertilizer dealer entitled to pre-arrest bail when the seized goods were sealed and the dealer is not the manufacturer?
- Does the provision of an alternate sentence of a fine in a statute justify the grant of bail?
- Can bail be granted when the investigation is complete and the prosecution has failed to associate the manufacturer of the alleged substandard goods?
- Section 18(1), Punjab Fertilizers (Control) Order 1973
- Section 6(1), Punjab Special Article Control Act 1973
- Section 10(1), Punjab Special Article Control Act 1973
Apprehending arrest at the hands of local police, petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.437 dated 30.12.2018, registered under Sections 18(1) of the Punjab Fertilizers (Control) Order 1973 and Sections 6(1) and 10(1) of the Punjab Special Article Control Act, 1973 at Police Station Chuchak, District Okara.
2. Ch. Muhammad Afzal Tahir, Assistant Director/complainant of the instant FIR has put the machinery of law into motion alleging therein that on 20.10.2018 at about 01:00 p.m he along with Talib Hussain, Field Assistant, Naseer Ahmad, Baildar and Ghulam Murtza, Driver conducted raid at Dar ul Ehsan Traders Chak No.36/AGD and took sample of fertilizer in presence of petitioner and the said fertilizer was found unfit-adulterated after its examination, hence the instant petition.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the record it reveals that there is no denial to this fact that the petitioner is nominated in the FIR, however this Court has to see from the facts and circumstances whether the case against him to the extent of grant of relief prayed for is made out or not. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner is a dealer of fertilizer and not a manufacturer . It is also not the case of the prosecution that bags from which sample were procured by the raiding party were lying open in the shop of the petitioner rather these were sealed bags and the petitioner used to sell the same as it received. According to Section 6(1) of the said Act punishment for the contravention of any notified order is up to three years or with fine which shall not be less than the value of essential articles in respect of which the order has been contravened or both.
4. Since alternate sentence of fine has also been provided, therefore, petitioner is entitled to concession of bail on this ground alone. Moreover , as alleged in the FIR the petitioner is a fertilizer dealer and he was found having substandard fertilizer but at the same time it is admitted fact that he is not the manufacturer of the said fertilizer .
When this situation was confronted to Ch. Muhammad Afzal Tahir/complainant and the Investigating Officer, present in Court whether the manufacture r or owner of the factory who produced the above said fertilizer has been associated or inquired about the substandard fertilizer the answer is in negative, which means that Investigating Agency has never bothered to investigate the real culprits. The investigation is already complete in the instant case and the prosecution has already collected the evidence, so sending the petitioner behind the bars would not serve any beneficial purpose to the prosecution.
5. For what has been discussed above, the instant petition is hereby allowed and ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to petitioner by this Court vide order dated 05.03.2019 is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two lacs) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.