SUFAIDULLAH vs The STATE
The appellant, a Depot-holder, challenged his conviction under sections 3/6 of the West Pakistan Food Stuffs (Control) Act, 1958, for alleged shortages of sugar and Atta, which was upheld by the lower appellate court and the High Court. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be sustained in the absence of crucial documentary evidence establishing the shortages and without examining the accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the Atta shortage. The Supreme Court held that the conviction could not be maintained based solely on unsubstantiated oral evidence and the unverified ipsi dixit of the Food Inspector, particularly when the stock register and documentary evidence were not produced and the mandatory examination under section 342 was deficient. The appeal was accordingly allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the fine was ordered to be remitted.
- Can a conviction for shortages of food stuffs be maintained under the West Pakistan Food Stuffs (Control) Act, 1958, in the absence of crucial documentary evidence such as the stock register?
- Whether reliance can be placed solely on the oral testimony and ipsi dixit of a Food Inspector to prove shortages of essential commodities?
- Does the failure to question an accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding a material piece of evidence vitiate the conviction?
- Section 3, West Pakistan Food Stuffs (Control) Act 1958
- Section 6, West Pakistan Food Stuffs (Control) Act 1958
- Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
1. MUHAMMAD HALEEM, C.J.--The appellant who was a Depot-holder was charged for shortages of sugar and Atta upon a verification of these items with the balances in the stock register, and convicted under sections 3/6 of the West Pakistan Food Stuffs (Control) Act, 1958, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000 or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. His appeal against the conviction was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nowshera, on 12th of September, 1977, and the revision in the High Court also failed as that too was dismissed on 26th of April, 1978.
2. Leave to appeal was, accordingly, granted to consider as to whether the conviction could be maintained in the absence of documentary evidence which was crucial in determining the shortages.
3. As the counsel for the appellant was absent, the learned Additional Advocate-General, N.-W.F.P., took us through the record. Our examination revealed that neither the stock register nor other documentary evidence was produced to establish the actual shortages. Additionally, as the stock was physically removed by the Food Inspector there was another ambiguity as to the exact weight of the stock as found on physical verification. This is not all, the appellant was not also questioned about the shortages of Atta while being examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. Hence the appellant was not allowed an opportunity to explain this piece of evidence against him. There was only oral evidence which was unsubstantiated. In such a case it is not possible to rely on the ipsi dixit of the Food Inspector without there being credible documentary evidence to establish the actual shortages. The learned Additional Advocate-General was unable to satisfy us that this was a case where conviction could be maintained.
4. Accordingly, we would allow the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence and order that the fine, if realised, shall be remitted to the appellant.