' This judgment will also dispose of Criminal Misc. No,45/0 of 1993 as in both the petitions common questions of law and facts have been raised. None appeared for respondent. Ex parte.
2. The petitioners in both the petitions have prayed for quashing of proceedings pending before the trial Court in case F.I.Rs, Nos.29 of 1992 and 17 of 1992 registered against them under section 420, P.P.C., rules 16-A and 43/44 of Pakistan Petroleum (Refining, Blending and Marketing) Rules, 1971. The allegations against the petitioners was that they were manufacturing adulterated Mobile Oil/Grease. After the premises were raided by the police on the alleged report by a Mukhbar samples were sent to laboratory for report. The incharge of the concerned laboratory raised an objection through letter dated 12-12-1992 to the following effect:-- "These samples were delivered to P.O.L. Laboratory in plastic containers and were not properly sealed as required vide procedures laid down in the relevant Petroleum Act and I.P./ASTM. The A/M samples were not forwarded here, under the seal/signatures of Illaqa Magistrate, authorised for the purpose."
' This letter was written to Deputy Commissioner, Lahore, who has been designated as the authority under the said rules. Under rules 34, 35 and 36 of the Petroleum (Refining) Rules, 1971 the authority or a person authorised by the Authority only has the power to make such examination or inquiry as he considers necessary for ensuring that the provisions of these rules or of any order made thereunder were being fully observed by a refinery, a blending plant or a marketing company and such an officer was the only authorised person who could take samples of Petroleum product.
According to rule 36 of the Petroleum (Refining) Rules, 1971 such samples are to be attested according to the standard procedure which has been given in rule 37 which according to the report of the Laboratory Incharge had not been complied with.
3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner in both the cases that the person who raided the premises of the petitioners i.e. an ordinary Police Officer was not authorised to do so and take samples therefore, the registration of cases was absolutely without lawful authority and consequential proceedings for the trial of the petitioners by the trial Court are also of no legal effect.
4. The argument has considerable force. Nobody has appeared on behalf of respondent to establish that the police officer who raided the premises of the petitioners, got the sample of disputed Mobile Oil/Grease was either a person who was constituted as an authority under the relevant rules or was authorised by the Authority to raid the premises and get samples. The very act of raiding the premises of the petitioners and getting sample by a Police Officer and registration of case was therefore, without lawful authority. According to the report of the Laboratory Incharge the procedure provided in law was not followed while sending the Mobile Oil to Laboratory after properly sealing the plastic container in which the same was sent under the signatures of Illaqa Magistrate authorised for the purpose. In the circumstance, there is no possibility of petitioners' conviction even if the trial of the cases is allowed.
5. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is accepted. The cases F.I.R. Nos.29/1992 and 17/1992 registered under section 420, P.P.C. read with rules 16/A and 43/44 of Pakistan Petroleum (Refining, Blending and Marketing) Rules, 1971 are hereby declared to have been registered without lawful authority and of no legal effect and the proceedings pending before the trial Court regarding the said cases are hereby quashed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.