Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD AKRAM VS Respondent: StateHonorable Justice Sardar Muhammad AslamMuhammad Masood Chishti,Tariq Waheed Khan for the State along with Muhammad Arshad
2005 M L D 1819
2005 M L D 1819
[Lahore]
Before Sardar Muhammad Aslam, J
MUHAMMAD AKRAM---Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE---Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous No.4689/13 of 2005, decided on 6th July, 2005.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 498---Agricultural Pesticide Ordinance (11 of 1971), S. 21(1)(a)---Pre-arrest bail, grant of---Accused did not supply pesticide to complainant, but complainant had approached the employee of accused---Under some misconception or misunderstanding, complainant was supplied agricide instead of pesticide, which did cause damage to crops of complainant---No mens rea was attributed to accused---Prima facie, accused had not committed any offence---Finding of Investigating Officer was that pesticide provided to complainant was neither adulterated nor substandard---Available record showed that it could not be resolved as to whether accused or his employee was at fault---Pre-arrest bail already granted to accused was confirmed, in circumstances.
Muhammad Masood Chishti for Petitioner.
Tariq Waheed Khan for the State along with Muhammad Arshad, A.S.-I. with record.
Hassan Ahmad Khan Kanwar for the Complainant.
Petitioner in person on pre-arrest bail.
Date of hearing: 6th July, 2005.
ORDER
The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 144 dated 12-4-2005 registered under section 21(1)(a) of Agricultural Pesticide Ordinance, 1971 Amended in 1997, with Police Station, Saddar Depalpur District Okara, on the ground that he has falsely been implicated in this case due to ulterior motive of the complainant in order to disgrace and humiliate him.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has not committed any offence; the pesticide provided by one Adrian, employee of the petitioner is on account of some misconception. The pesticide was not adulterated nor substandard.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the prayer for confirmation of pre-arrest bail contending that there is no mala fide or ulterior motive alleged to the complainant or the police to falsely involve the petitioner, hence he is not entitled to the confirmation of pre-arrest bail.
4. Learned counsel for the State submitted that pesticide is neither 'substandard nor adulterated. He on instruction from the Investigating Officer stated that one Adrian, Salesman, provided pesticide to the complainant and there was some misunderstanding between Adrian and the purchaser. No mens rea is available in the present case.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. The, petitioner did not supply the pesticide. The complainant approached his employee. Under some misconception or misunderstanding the complainant was supplied agricide instead of pesticide, which did cause damage to the crops of the complainant. No mess rea is available.
7. Prima facie, the petitioner has not committed any offence. Finding of the Investigating Officer that the pesticide provided to the complainant is neither adulterated nor sub standard. At present, from the record available, it cannot be resolved as to whether the petitioner or Adrian, employee of the petitioner was at fault.
8. For what has been discussed above, this petition is accepted and petitioner's pre-arrest bail already granted to him vide order dated 23-6-2005 is confirmed provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trail Court.
H.B.T./M-1241/L Bail confirmed.