Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 336/Q of 1974, decided on 4th March 1975.

‑‑ Ss. 3, 6 & 12‑West Pakistan Food Supply (Control) Act (XX of 1958), S. 6‑Possession of foodgrains in excess of normal quantity‑Quantity of foodgrains permissible to producer for retention‑Far greater than that premissible to non‑producers Limit nonetheless fixed for retention of foodgrains by producers Exceeding of limit‑Punishable [Court observation]‑Not fair to accuse producers of hoarding or storing foodgrains for illegal or unethical purpose during harvest season especially when grains stored in godowns at producer's own farms.

Sh. Maqbool Ahmad‑II for Petitioner.

Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa for the State.

Date of hearing : 19th December 1974.

This is an application by Khawaja Fazal Karim, Manager of Muhammad Anwar, Model Farm, Chak No. 125/G. B., In District Lyallpur under sec tion 561‑A. Cr. P. C. for the quashment of the proceedings of a criminal case pending against him in the Court of the Assistant Commissioner, Jaranwala, for offences under sections 3 and 6 of the West Pakistan Foodgrains (Licens ing Control) Order, 1957, and section 6 of the West Pakistan Foodstuffs (Control) Act XX of 1958.

2. The allegation against him is that the police received information that a large quantity of wheat was stored at the afore‑mentioned farm, which is being managed by the petitioner. The Tehsildar, Jaranwala (respondent No. 2) thereupon raided the farm alongwith Mr. Sultan Sikander A. S. I. and two constables of Police Station Jaranwala. They found 2197 maunds and 15 seers of wheat lying at the farm. The wheat in question was attached by the Tehsildar and given on superdari to one Mehr Khan Lambardar. The Tehsilder then lodged the F.I.R. against the petitioner for having contravened the provisions of sections 3 and 6 of the Foodstuff (Control) Ordinance, 1957.

Hence the quashment application.

3. It was urged on behalf of the petitioner that the Foodstuff (Control) Ordinance, 1957 (West Pakistan Ordinance No. XI of 19.57) was repealed by the West Pakistan Foodstuffs (Control) Act XX of 1958 and therefore the proceedings against the petitioner under a 'dead law' (i. e. a law which is no longer in existence), are an abuse of the process of Court'.

The learned counsel for the Food Department Punjab, replied that al though the West Pakistan Ordinance XI of 1957 had been repealed as asserted by the petitioner's counsel, but since it was replaced by the repealing Act(Act No. XX of 1958) which is a pari materia enactment, all Orders including the West Pakistan Foodstuffs (Licensing Control) Order, 1957, made under the repealed Ordinance became Orders under the relevant section (I. e. sec tion 3) of Act XX of 1958, by virtue of section 23 of the West Pakistan General Clauses Act and the petitioner could, therefore, be prosecuted for contravening any provision of the said Order. In support of this contention he referred to Muhammad Wasil v. Manager of Waqf Properties (P L D 1972 Lah. 425), Muhammad Ismail v. State (1969 P Cr. L J 114) and State v. Fateh Khan (1968 P Cr. L J 83).

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner conceded this legal position and had to admit that the West Pakistan Foodgrains (Licensing Control) Order, 1957 is still in force as an effective law, which lays down, inter alia, that no one is permitted to keep more than 'normal quantity' of foodgrain. But he urged strongly that section 3 of the said Order makes a special exception in favour of 'producers' of foodgrain inasmuch as they could not only engage in an undertaking involving purchase and sale of foodgrain but could also store it for purposes of sale and such a producer or grower cannot be prosecuted for keeping or storing any foodgrain, including wheat.

I am afraid I cannot agree with this contention because section 5 of the same Order provides that "no person shall, except on the authority of the Director or the Licensing Authority, at any one time, possess more than the normal quantity of foodgrain" The expression 'Normal Quantity' has been defined in section 2 (xii) of the said Order. In relation to persons other than producers, it means a quantity required by him and his family‑members at the scale of seer per day per person, while in relation to producers the 'Normal Quantity' is fixed at 100 maunds or enough foodgrains for the consumption of his own family; the families of his tenants and seeds for his cultivable area, in accordance with Schedule III of the Order. No doubt, the quantity of foodgrain that a producer is entitled to keep is far greater than that a non‑producer is allowed to keep, yet a limit has been a fixed even with regard to producers and exceeding that limit is punish able as being in contravention of the provisions of the Order.

5. It will be noticed that the purpose of the promulgation of the Order in question was to meet a national crisis, namely, acute storage of wheat at that time. The nation is again facing the same crisis today. In accordance with the well settled rule of interpretation of Statutes, the provisions of the West Pakistan Foodstuffs (Control) and Licensing order, 1957 must be interpreted so as to promote the aforementioned purpose and to suppress the mischief which was intended to be prevented through it. Keeping this rule in view. I feel that sections 3 and 5 of Order XI of 1957 seek to provide that no one should keep or hoard excessive quantities of foodgrain, so that sufficient quantities thereof can always be available in the market. Quantities which a person (including a producer) is allowed to store have been specified in section 2 (xii) (a) and (b) of the Order and any person contravening the provision of section 5 prohibiting the storage of quantities greater than the 'Normal Quantity' can be convicted and punished under section 6 of Act XX of 1958 read with section 12 of Order XI of 1957. In the present case, the petitioner, though a producer, was found to be in possession of wheat in excess of the Normal Quantity'. As a result, he is prima facie guilty of an offence under section 6 of Act XX of 1958 read with section 12 of Order XI of 1957 and it would not be appropriate for this Court to quash the proceedings against him and thus usurp the functions of the trial Court. The application is, therefore, dismissed.

6. However, before parting with this case, I may mention that although the laws in question have been framed in national interest and with a view to make enough foodgrains available for supply to the public in general, but it can result in great hardship to the growers and producers of food grain, many of whom are likely to have more than the 'Normal Quantity' of foodgrain with them, in their godowns situated on their own farms, during the thrashing season, because it cannot be expected that they should keep the wheat (or for that matter any other foodgrains), in open fields at the mercy of the thieves or national calamities like fire, rain, floods etc. and therefore, as soon as it is thrashed at their farms, they are compelled to store it some time for preventing its theft or destruction by rain or fire. It would be quite another matter if huge stocks of wheat etc. were to be found with producers long after the harvesting season, because in that case they may reasonably be presumed to be hoarding it for making undue profits by creating artificial shortage in the country. But it is certainly not fair to accuse them of hoarding or storing wheat, for an illegal or unethical purpose, during the harvest season specially when they have not stored it at any other place but in godowns at their owns farms. I feel that strict application of the pro visions of the Order to growers or producers of foodgrain, as in the present case, may ultimately, defeat the very purpose of the Order, because if harassed too much, they are likely to stop growing foodstuffs to which these provisions are applicable.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.