' Muhammad Akram and four others, petitioners, stand convicted under section 23 of the West Pakistan Pure Food Ordinance, 1960, and sentenced to one year's R.I. And a fine of Rs, 500 each or in default thereof two months' S.I.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners mainly submitted that the entire proceedings from the stage of the cognizance of the case were/are illegal inasmuch as the report/complaint was lodged by the Magistrate and not by the Health Officer or the Inspector duly notified by the Government, as required by the provisions of section 32 of the West Pakistan Pure Food Ordinance, 1960. No one has appeared for the State to oppose him.
3. I have considered the matter carefully. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners. The relevant provision of law may be reproduced conveniently:--- "S.32.--Com plaint to be filed by whom. No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Ordinance except on the report in writing of the facts constituting such offence made by a Health Officer of a Local Authority or an Inspector authorized in this behalf by a general or special order of the Director or Government."
The plain reading of this section will show that the trial Court was not competent to take cognizance of the offence under which the accused was tried and punished except on the report/complaint lodged by the Health Officer or by the Notified Inspector. In the instant case, neither the Health Officer nor the Notified Officer has lodged the report/complaint, instead the report was lodged by the Magistrate Ist Class, Sargodha. This being the position, there is no option but to accept this revision and set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioners so they are acquitted of the charge. They are on bail and stand discharged of their bail bonds.