The petitioners, by this petition, seek the quashment of proceedings pending before the Special Judge (Central) Lahore, arising out of case: F.I.R. No.91, dated 30-11-1986, registered at Railway Police Station, Wazirabad, District Gujranwala, against them under sections 406, 409 and 420/109, P.P.C. Read with section 5 of Act II of 1947 and section 3/6 of Foodstuffs Control Act, 1958, on the ground that even if the allegations against the petitioners are proved, even then no offence is made out against them.
2. The allegations against the petitioners and two others in the F.I.R. Dated 30-11-1986 lodged by Ch. M. Siddiq Zia, District Food Controller, Gujranwala, are that on 29-11-1986 the Director, Food Department, Punjab, received an information that some substandard rice was being despatched at Kamokee Railway Station to Karachi for export through three wagons bearing No.70084, 67362 and 63540. He directed to detain the wagons for checking. On the following day at 10 a.m. District Food Controller, Gujranwala, reached Kamokee Railway Station, meanwhile Director Food Department, Punjab, accompanied by Manager Procurement, Punjab, Lahore; General Manager, Technical R.E.C.P. And Deputy Director Food, Gujranwala, besides Assistant Food Controller (Enforcement) reached there. In the presence of these officers that aforesaid railway wagons were desealed and samples were taken by Muhammad Arshad inspector R.E.C.P. The absconding accused, and Saleem-ul-Haq Analyst (now petitioner). On analysis they found difference of quality of rice as compared to the samples previously analysed by them on 27-11-1986. On his report the case was registered in the manner aforesaid and on the completion of investigation, the challan was submitted in the Court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, (Central) Lahore, against the petitioners, the suppliers of rice, and two officials, namely; Kh. Muhammad Arshad Inspector R.E.C.P., and Rauf Saleem-ul-Haq, Analyst Food Department, Punjab. The proceedings are still at the initial stage. Kh. Muhammad Arshad, Inspector R.E.C.P., is still absconding. Even this Court has not been able to serve him due to his absconsion, after impleading him as a respondent alongwith Rauf Saleem-ul-Haq who now stands transposed to the category of the petitioner on his own request.
3. It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that petitioners Nos.1 to 4 had supplied the rice to the R.E.C.P. Persaunt to a commercial deal, which stood completed for all intents and purposes one the agreed quantity, after the quality test, stood loaded in the railway wagons for despatch to Karachi, but if, as a result of some super inspection, which was carried out in the absence and without the knowledge of petitioners Nos.1 to 4, some quality difference was really detected, they at the most incurred civil liability and on the demand already made by the Food Department, which also figured in the deal, they were ready to pay the quality differential to the R.E.C.P. As envisaged by the Voluntory Procurement Scheme of Rice 1986-87. The learned counsel referred to various provisions 6f this Scheme and contended that the rice sellers could .Not be prosecuted and the officials concerned could at the most be proceeded against departmentally and launching their prosecution was also uncalled for.
4. The learned State Counsel, opposing the quashment petition, submitted that in addition to incurring civil liability under the aforesaid Scheme, the petitioners also entailed criminal liability and they were rightly being prosecuted.
5. It appears that appeals filed by the rice sellers/petitioners against the orders of Food Officers demanding quality differential have been pending before the Director, Food Department, since long and he has taken no decision thereon. It is possible that the early decision of appeals would have clinched matter, thereby obviating the necessity of continuing their prosecution. However, the case of the two officials was on different footing. They could not avoid prosecution, which, irrespective of the decision of the: appeals and withdrawal of the case against the rice sellers, if the authorities So decide, had to continue even in addition to the disciplinary action, if any.
6. In view of the above, Director, Food Department, Punjab, is directed I to decide the pending appeals of Petitioners Nos.1 to 4 (rice sellers) within a month in accordance with law and after the decision and its implementation if the Food Department in consultation with the R.E.C.P. Decides to drop their 13 prosecution, the trial Court may consider their request to that effect, otherwise their trial shall continue alongwith that of their official co-accused. There seems to be no legal bar against the continuance of civil and criminal, proceedings in respect of the same incident side by side.
7. With the above observations the quashment petition is dismissed.