MUHAMMAD QASIM KHAN, J.---Petitioners (Imtiaz Ali alias Papu, Sarfraz Ahmad, Muhammad Sajjad, Allah Ditta and Allah Bakhsh) seek pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.382/2013 dated 6-10-2013 under sections 26-16/44 of Pakistan Petroleum (Refining Blending and Marketing) Rules, 1971 read with sections 420/468, 471/467, 482/483, 485/486 of the Pakistan Penal Code, registered at Police Station Sarai Sidhu, District Khanewal, wherein, precisely the allegation against the petitioners is that on spy information when raid was conducted by the team, they were found packing spurious mobil oil. All the accused managed their escape on seeing the raiding party, however, recoveries were effected from the spot.
2. The main thrust of arguments by learned counsel for the petitioners is that offences under Pakistan Petroleum (Refining Blending and Marketing) Rules 1971 are not attracted in this case, as raid on reclamation plaint could be conducted only by the authority, or anyone else to whom he delegated the power in this regard, therefore, raid by the Sub-Inspector or District Officer, Civil Defence, Khanewal, is against law; that samples which were taken and sent for testing were not properly obtained and requirements of rule 38 of the Pakistan Petroleum (Refining, Blending and Marketing) Rules, 1971 were violated; that offence does not fall within prohibitory clause and moreover, the same is bailable. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the case "Raja Ansar Nadeem Ahmad v. The State and others" (2012 YLR 2855).
3. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record.
4. Rule 2(b) of Pakistan Petroleum (Refining, Blending and Marketing) Rules, 1971 defines the "Authority" as Director General Oil. It is important to mention here that Rules 34 and 35 of the Pakistan Petroleum (Refining, Blending and Marketing) Rules, 1971 are with regard to entry, inspection and enforcement of Rules. Rule 35 is with regard to facilities to the Inspecting Officer to be provided by the owner, manager or any other person incharge. Rules 36 and 37 are with regard to collection of samples and test in laboratories, etc. And under rule 43(a) the District Coordination Officer of the District has been declared as authority with regard to powers to perform functions under rules 34, 35, A 36, 38 and 43. When rule 2(b) is read with rule 4(a), it becomes clear that District Coordination Officer is authorized with regard to entry, inspection and collection of samples and for the same purpose, he could A delegate his powers to District Officer, Civil Defence.
5. Another important aspect of the matter is that under Part-V "INSPECTION AND CHECKS" and W "TESTING OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS", relate to entrance, examination or inquiry and testing of petroleum products and only an authorized person either authority under rule 2(b) or-under rule 43(a) or a person who has been delegated powers in that behalf, can enter to make search and collect samples for the purposes of test, but these rules cannot be read in isolation to other parts of the Pakistan Petroleum (Refining, Blending and Marketing) Rules, 1971, because although any police official does not enjoy authority to enter into any refinery, blending plant (reclamation plant) and marketing company, but this restriction is with regard to refinery, blending plant (reclamation plant) and marketing company, which have been compulsorily registered under Rule 16 as mentioned in PART-III of the Rules and other necessary conditions have been fulfilled as provided in PART-III and IV of the rules with regard to the marketing of petroleum products. In such an eventuality, conditions mentioned from Rules 16 to 33 would be applicable, but when a refinery, blending plant, (reclamation plant) and marketing company, is established without licence and performs functions without permission of the authority and B' without fulfilling other conditions, then requirements laid down under Rule 34 with regard to entry and inspection would not be applicable, as the law protects only those who abide by the law and no leniency can be shown towards the persons who have least respect for the law, rather are out to defraud the public by supply spurious and adulterated petroleum products. In this view of the matter, any refinery blending plant, (reclamation plant) and marketing company; which is run without proper licence and permission by the authority required under the rules or without fulfilling other formalities necessary for establishment of such refinery, blending plant, (reclamation plant) and marketing company, then the law enforcing agencies including the police would be competent to enter, search, inspect the site and collect samples for analysis, and if found involved in a cognizable offence, police is fully competent to register a criminal case against them.
6. As regards the stance taken by learned counsel for the petitioner that rules 34, 35, 36 and 37 of the Pakistan Petroleum (Refining, Blending and Marketing) Rules, 1971 are mandatory has no legal backing, because the above referred rules laid down in the Pakistan Petroleum (Refining, Blending and Marketing) Rules, 1971, are only directory in nature and not mandatory, for the reason that no penal clause has been provided in case of non-observance of the formalities detailed there in.
7. Apart from this legal position, another factual aspect of the matter is that by insertion of Rule 43A in Pakistan Petroleum (Refining Blending and Marketing) Rules, 1971, the District Coordination Officers have been declared as "Authority" in the following manner:-- 43A. Certain powers of Authority exercisable by the District Coordination Officer.--In rules 34, 35, 36, 38 and 43, reference to "Authority" includes a reference to the "District Coordination Officer" of the district in, or in relation to which any power or function is to be exercised or performed by the Authority."
In this view of the matter, the argument of learned counsel with regard to non-application is Pakistan Petroleum (Refining, Blending and Marketing) Rules, 1971 has no legal foundation to stand on. As is alleged in the FIR, petitioners were running unauthorized factory dealing with lubricant oil and reclamation plaint, etc without fulfilling the legal formalities as required by the Pakistan Petroleum (Refining, Blending and Marketing) Rules, 1971, therefore, the petitioners would be exposed to all legal consequences under the said Rules, as well as under Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 or any other law applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.
8. As regards the case law referred by learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that proper assistance was not rendered in the said referred case, otherwise, it is well settled proposition of law that where the relevant statute itself does specify whether an offence under it, is bailable, non- bailable, cognizable or non-cognizable, then Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) would apply.
Rule 44 of the aforesaid Rules provided for imprisonment up to three years or with fine of Rs.15000 or with both, as such according to Schedule-II under the heading "OFFENCES AGAINST OTHER LAWS" the offences with which the petitioners are charged, are non-bailable.
9. For what has been discussed above, since there exists no mala fide or ulterior motives on the part of the complainant, the petitioner are not found entitled for extra ordinary concession of pre- arrest bail. Further deeper appraisal of evidence is not warranted at this stage. However, the learned trial court will be at liberty to examine in detail the report of the Chemical Examiner for the purposes of sampling, etc. This petition, therefore, is dismissed.