1. This is a reference under section 438, Cr. P. C. By the learned Sessions Judge, Khairpur recommending that proceedings against respondents Nos. 1 and 2 pending in the Court of S. D. M.
2. Mirwah at Kotdiji, under sections 3, 6 and 9 of the West Pakistan Foodstuffs (Control) Act, 1958, be quashed.
3. I have heard Mr. Azizullah K. Shaikh Advocate for the respondents and Mr. S. M. Noorul Hassan the learned counsel fur the State in this case. They have both supported the reference on the reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge. The order of reference is an elaborate one and gives all the reasons in support of the recommendation of the learned Judge. I do not find it necessary to reproduce them. It is an admitted position that the respondent No. 1 was a Zaminder and respondent No. 2 was his Kamdar. The former was therefore entitled to retain the normal quantity of wheat for seed, maintenance for himself, his family, his tenants and their dependents as detailed in the declaration dated 30-6-1967. The learned Sessions Judge rightly calculated all these and came to the conclusion that the respondent No. 1 could retain even more stock than the quantity of 332 maunds 20 seers for which he was being sought to be prosecuted. Admittedly the stocks were lying openly on the land and as successive representations and applications mad by the respondent No. 1 to the District Authorities would show, he was repeatedly pointing out their attention to the fact that he should be permitted to transport it to Somaro or Nara for disposal as otherwise the stocks would deteriorate. This request was being turned down by the District Authorities on the ground that there was shortage of foodstuff in the Nara area and that the stock would be sold for local consumption under proper control by the Mukhtiarkar concerned. It is, therefore, surprising that it) spite of this straightforward conduct of respondent No. 1 and this attitude on the part of the District Authorities the respondents should be faced with a prosecution in respect of the same stock of wheat which he was not permitted to dispose of. Taking into consideration all the facts and circum--stances of this case, I have not the slightest hesitation in holding, that the proceedings against the respondents amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. Even if all the facts alleged by the prosecution are accepted on their face value, no prima facie case is made out, against either of the two respondents. In view of what has been stated above and the excellent reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge I would agree with the learned counsel for the State that this reference should be accepted, and the proceedings against respondents Nos. 1 and 2 be quashed.