' FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.--- This order shall dispose of Writ Petitions Nos.6142 of 2004 and Writ Petition No, 6143 of 2004 as similar questions and facts of law are involved.
2. Through this writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of the F.IR.. No, 112 of 2004 registered with Police Station Bohar Gate, Multan under sections 420/482/483/485/471/468, P.P.C. On the written complaint of Col. (R) Muhammad Iftikhar Ahmad Khan, Security Consultants Pakistan State Oil Limited.
2-A. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No, 3/Kabir Ahmad, S.-I., Police Station Bohar Gate, Multan was not authorized to conduct raid at the premises of the petitioner and as such the registration of F.I.R. By respondents Nos.2, 3 on the request of respondent No, 4 is absolutely without lawful authority. Further contends that under Rule 2(b) and Rules 43 of Pakistan Petroleum Rules, 1971, the competent authority for conducting raids or for initiating any action with regard to dealing with the business of adulterated Mobil Oil or diesel etc. Is the Director of Oil Operations Natural Resources Islamabad and Deputy Commissioner D.C.O. Of the District. The raid conducted by respondent No, 3 and the alleged recovery made by him and the impugned F.I.R.
Lodged against the petitioner are wholly without lawful authority. Reliance is placed on Naeem Akhtar and others v. The State 1993 M LD 577 (Lahore) and Tariq Mehmood v. Muhammad Jehangir Garayia 2003 YLR 239 (Lahore). He further argues that matters relating to adulterated Mobil Oil or diesel etc. Are to be dealt with under the relevant provisions of Petroleum Act (XX of 1934) and Petroleum Rules, 1971, the special laws and registration of F.I.R. Under sections 420/468/471/482/483; P.P.C., the general laws is illegal. The offences are non-cognizable, no criminal case could be registered against the petitioner nor can he be arrested by the police.
3. Learned counsel contends that the F.I.R. Is liable to be quashed on this score only as the same has been lodged regarding the same alleged occurrence about which a criminal case has already been lodged vide F.I.R. No, 110 of 2004.
4. Learned A.A.-G. Argues that it is not a fit case for quashing of the F.I.R. High Court while exercising its Constitutional jurisdiction can quash a criminal case:-
(a) when the case is of no evidence.
(b) when the very registration is proved to be mala fide on the very face of record.
(c) when case is of purely civil nature, criminal proceedings are not warranted in law, especially to harass the accused.
(d) when there is serious jurisdictional defect; and
(e) when there is unexceptional delay in the disposal of the case causing deplorable mental, physical and financial torture to the person proceeded against.
' The case of the petitioner is not covered by any of the above mentioned grounds. The prosecution had prima facie, documentary as well as oral evidence to substantiate the allegation made against the accused.
5. Learned counsel for respondents Nos.3 and 4 argues that the F.I.R. No, 112 of 2004 was registered under sections 420/482/483/468/ 471, P.P.C. On 24-8-2004 at Police Station Bohar Gate, Multan on the complaint of respondent No, 4 Col. (R) Muhammad Iftikhar Ahmad, Security Consultant, Pakistan State Oil Limited, Multan, who has been duly authorized by Pakistan State Oil (P.S.0.)
Company to act on its behalf for taking/launching legal action against production of fake Mobil Oil, counterfeiting and misuse of the trade mark and the products vide letter dated 20-12-2001. It is further argued that provisions of Pakistan Petroleum (Refining, Blending and Marketing) Rules, 1971 not attracted the facts and circumstances of the case. The rules deal with the agent or dealer and the Authority. The person, who does fall within the definition of agent or dealer, is to be treated under these rules. It is only in case of Authority, Dealer or Agent, raid cannot be conducted by the police without prior permission of D.C. Or the competent Authority.
' The word "Agent or Dealer" as defined in the 1974 Rules means:-- "Agent or Dealer" means person appointed by a Market Company engaged in sale, distribution or marketing of petroleum products at the dispensing outlets of tilling stations belonging to or installed or routed out to him by the company.
' The word "person" includes "any Corporation, Joint Stock Company, Partnership association, business trust organized group of persons whether incorporated or not and the receivers or trustee of any of these."
' The word "marketing company" means: "a person engaged in purchasing or obtaining petroleum products from local refineries or from or through sources abroad for selling, distributing or marketing directly or through his agents or dealers at his dispensing outlets or filling stations."
' The petitioner is not authorized agent or dealer appointed by a Market Company (P.S.O.). The word "No person shall" does not fall in the definition of the word "person" given in sub-rule (g) of Rule 2.
Thus, in his case these rules will not be applicable and no permission of the D.C. Or D.C.O. And of the Authority was required before conducting the raid and also to register a case under the Petroleum Rules, 1971.
7. The allegations against the petitioner are that he is not only blending, refining and marking the fake oil; but are also using forged seals, cans, tapes, stickers and trade mark, having monograms of P.S.O. Company. The petitioner is not only causing wrongful loss to the company but is also wrongly gaining from their illegal acts. The P.S.O. Company is directly aggrieved by those illegal and wrongly act of the petitioner. The trade mark of the P.S.O. Is its property and is owned by it, the petitioner deliberately is using with mala fide these fake stickers which amounts to a direct threat and attacked on the property owned by the P.S.O. In such circumstances action can be taken under sections 478, P.P.C. To 486, P.P.C. To protect the property and right of the person. A deliberate violation is punishable under the law. Sections 468/469/471, P.P.C. Are applicable in the instant case as the petitioners by forging their monograms sticker's tapes etc. With the intention to cause damage or injury is liable to be punished for this illegal and wrongful act.
8. The word forgery is defined in section 468, P.P.C. Which say:-- "whoever makes any false document or part of document, with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intend to commit fraud and that fraud may be committed commits forgery."
' Article 2(b) of Qanun-e-Shahadat provides definition of "document" as under:--- "Document" means any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters figures or marks, or by more than one of these means, intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording the matter.
' Definition of word document in P.P.C. Is as under:-- "Document denotes any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters figures or marks, or by more than one of those means intended to be used, or which may be used as evidence of that matter.
9. It is argued that term "document" includes every thing done by the pen, by encarving, by printing or otherwise, whereby, it is made on paper, parchment, wood or other substance, a representation of words or other equivalent addressed to the eye. These words do occur in sections 167, 175, 192, 284, 463, 464, 469, 470 etc. Of the P.P.C.
10. It is argued that allegations against the petitioner is that he prepared forged, fictitious monogram, seals, tapes, stickers labels, cans, containing trade mark and by filling the cans with fake mobil oil. He sells his product and the fake cans with monograms P.S.O. In the market showing it to be genuine. By this act he is causing damage to the company and to the person to whom said articles are sold showing to be genuine. By doing so, he committed forgery for the purposes of cheating, hampering the representation company. He forged the documents (stickers etc.) as genuine dishonestly, fraudulently with the knowledge that these are forged document. All these acts and actions of the accused/petitioner attract the provisions of sections 467/468/469/471/ 472 and 473, P.P.C. As far as section 420, P.P.C. Is concerned, the word cheating is defined in section 415, P.P.C., which provides that:-- "Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omissions causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person or any other person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to `cheat'."
11. From the perusal of the above definitions it is sufficient to postulate that section 420, P.P.C. Is also attracted to the case in hand. He further argues that Pakistan Petroleum Rules, 1971 are in operation for the control of refining, blending and marketing of petroleum products. These rules specified in details the role and power of different authorities for smooth functioning of blending and reclamation plans in the country. The illegal house manufacturing, the product of Ka rahi Plants are run and established by this mafia, who earn huge profit by selling its product under the name and style of P.S.O. Gives an independent cause of action to the respondent to take action and to register a criminal case against culprits. This illegal way of blending, refining and marketing not only is causing loss to the company, but also to the exchequer and public-at-large.
12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the relevant law and Rules, 1971. It is an admitted position that the petitioner is not authorized agent or dealer of any Marketing Company including the P.S.O. (respondents). He is not covered by the Rule, 1971 as he does not fall within the definition of person defined in sub-rule (g) of Rule 2 of 1971 Rules. When he is not covered by 1971 Rules, then in his case no prior permission of the Deputy Commissioner or D.C.O. And competent Authority was required. It is only in the cases of the authorized agents or dealer appointed by as Marketing Company for the sale of their products, prior sanction of the competent authority or the D.C.O. (Deputy Commissioner) was necessary. In the instant case F.I.R.
Was lodged with local police on the complaint of Col. (R.) Iftikhar Ahmad (authorized by the respondent-Company) to lodge such complaint against those who are causing loss of money and damage to their reputation by selling their substandard stuff using forged stickers monograms etc. Passing it to genuine goods of P.S.O.
13. For what has been discussed in above paras., it is held that the case was got registered by the Police Station Bohar Gate, Multan, on behalf of P.S.O. By their duly authorized person against the petitioner, who is neither a dealer nor agent of the "Marketing Company" P.S.O. Respondent. As such petitioner's business is not covered by the Petroleum Rules, 1971; and no prior permission is required of D.C.O. Or the competent authority before conducting raid by the police. The writ petition for quashing of the F.I.R. No, 112 of 2004 dated 23-8-2004 is not maintainable, the same is hereby dismissed.