' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.--- Through this writ petition the petitioner has sought quashing of case F.I.R. No,168 registered at Police Station Ghulam Muhammadabad, Faisalabad on 22-2-2006 in respect of offences under Articles 3/4 of the Prohibition(Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The allegation levelled in the impugned F.I.R. Is that the petitioner was found in illegal possession of about 643 liters of rectified spirit.
2. The document appended with this petition as Annexure "A" shows that the petitioner is duly authorized to keep the recovered substance in his possession and he holds a valid permit for the same. The impugned F.I.R. Itself shows that on the day of the alleged recovery the said permit of the petitioner was still intact and that the same had been suspended at a subsequent stage. The documents appended with this petition as Annexures "A/I" and A/II" further show that on 2-2-2006 the petitioner had procured 160 gallons (724 liters) of rectified spirit with prior approval of the concerned authority. In these circumstances it is evident that the petitioner was in possession of the recovered rectified spirit quite lawfully and without breaking any law. The learned Assistant Advocate-General and respondent No,2 have, however, pointed out that under some provisions contained in the Punjab Excise Manual the petitioner could have opened the seals of the rectified spirit only in the presence of an Excise Officer but the petitioner had failed to do the same. The impugned F.I.R., however, shows that no such allegation is contained in the same and it is not even alleged in the said F.I.R. That the rectified spirit was not properly sealed at the time of its recovery or that the seals of the same had been broken or opened. Be that as it may, despite my searching queries in this regard, the learned Assistant Advocate-General as well as respondent No,2 have failed to point out any provision in any law for the time being in force making a violation of the provision of the Punjab Excise Manual liable to penal consequences or prescribing that a criminal case can be registered against a violator in that regard.
3. For what has been discussed above it is quite clear that the contents of the impugned F.I.R. Do not disclose commission of the alleged offences by the petitioner. In these circumstances allowing the impugned F.I.R. To continue to hold the field is to amount to an abuse of the process of law which cannot be allowed by this Court to be perpetuated. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed with no order as to costs and the impugned F.I.R. Is hereby quashed.
Civil Miscellaneous No,2 of 2006
4. As the main writ petition has been allowed and disposed of by this Court today, therefore, the present miscellaneous petition seeking interim relief has lost its relevance. Disposed of.
F.I.R. Quashed.