Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision Application No.125 of 1982, decided on 13th January, 1985.

---Ss.2(c), 7 & Schedule--Commodities not mentioned in Sched to Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act, 1977--Accused, held, could not be convicted for charging higher prices of such commodities- Conviction and sentence set aside, in circumstances.

Criminal Revision No.110 of 1981 and Criminal Revision No.112 of 1981 fol.

Mukhdoom Mujtaba Shah for Applicant.

Ghulam Ali Agha for the State.

Date of hearing: 13th January, 1985.

The applicant was convicted on his plea of guilty by learned 1st Class Magistrate for offence under section 7 of the Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) for having sold Kinno at price higher than fixed by the Government. He was convicted of the above offence and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000 or in default of payment to undergo R.I. for 15 days. The applicant filed appeal against the above conviction and sentence, but it was dismissed by learned IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi by his order, dated 8-9-1982.

2. The above order has been challenged by the applicant in this revision application mainly on the ground that Kin no/ Malta/Muttar are not mentioned in the Schedule to the above Act and as such the conviction was illegal and even the trial was bad.

3. Perusal of section 6 of the said Act shows that (he Provincial Government is entitled to issue Gazette Notification fixing prices for essential commodities. According to definition of "essential commodities" laid down in section 2(c) of the said Act, the 'essential commodities' are those which are mentioned in the Schedule to the said Act.

4. Now perusal of the Schedule shows that neither Kinno nor Malta nor Muttar figure therein. It is, therefore, evidence that the applicant could not have been prosecuted for charging higher prices for commodities which are not essential commodities according to the Schedule to the above Act.

5. Mr. Ghulam Ali Agha learned counsel for the State has been unable to produce any notification fixing prices of the above commodities or to produce any amendment to indicate that the above commodities have been declared essential commodities in terms of section 2(c) of the said Act. Unfortunately this aspect of the case was neither argued before the first appellate Court nor that Court adverted to this account.

6. Mr. Makhdoom Mujtaba has produced copies of unreported decisions in Criminal Revision No.110/1981 and Criminal Revision No.112/1981 in which conviction were set aside on similar grounds i.e. the commodities for- which the persons were convicted under section 7 of the said Act, were not 'essential commodities' according to the said Act.

I am in respectful agreement with the decisions in the above cases and hold that the conviction is bad in the present case. The revision application is allowed. The conviction and sentence is set aside and the applicant stands acquitted of the offence he has been charged with. The fine, if recovered from the applicant, shall be refunded to him.

M. A. K.

Petition accepted

Find a Lawyer Near You

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