MUHAMMAD PARVEZ Versus S.H.O.

ORDER

A criminal case under sections 420/468/482/486/272/273, P.P.C. and section 3/6 of the Foodstuffs Control Act, 1958, was registered against the petitioners with Police Station Lala Musa on 6‑2‑1992 vide F.I.R. No.21/92.

2. The allegation is that the petitioner was caught red‑handed while making adulteration in the edible items of daily use.

3. Learned counsel has moved this Constitutional Petition for quashment of the aforesaid F.I.R. Learned counsel contends that the petitioners have been implicated in this case on account of enmity inasmuch as number of people from the locality have sworn affidavits disclosing that the petitioners have got nothing to do with the allegation of adulteration having been levelled against them. In support of the contention, attention of the Court has been drawn to Annexures `D/1' to `D‑34' by the learned counsel. Learned counsel also argues that the raiding party was not at all competent to raid the premises of the petitioner. The petition was opposed by the learned,, Law Officer tooth and nail. It is contended by the learned Law Officer that serious allegations of adulteration have been levelled against the petitioners and that the case was still at the investigation stage.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also seen the record with care. The fact that several people from the locality swore affidavits saying that the petitioners have got nothing to do with the allegations levelled against them and that the same were unfounded, cannot be A given any credence at this stage because the case was still under investigation. The petitioners shall be at liberty to give their own view point before the investigating officer for his consideration according to law. No case whatsoever for interference‑at this stage has been made out. In this view of the matter, there is no substance in this petition, which is dismissed.

H.B.T./M‑497/1 Petition dismissed.