Case: Muhammad Ashraf Vs The State etc.
Citation: 2024 YLR 1182
Court: High Court
Judge: Mr. Justice Tariq Saleem Sheikh
Summary:
The case of Muhammad Ashraf Vs The State revolves around the provisions of the Punjab Food Authority (PFA) Act, specifically focusing on the enforcement mechanisms aimed at ensuring food safety and standards. The PFA Act's objective is to protect public health through rigorous food safety measures and establishing robust food standards.
Key Points:
-
Purpose of the PFA Act:
The primary goal is to protect public health by ensuring food safety and maintaining food standards.
-
Enforcement Mechanism:
The Act provides a comprehensive enforcement mechanism that includes sampling and credible laboratory analysis.
-
Food Laboratory Establishment:
Section 21 of the Act empowers the Food Authority to establish a food laboratory or recognize/accredit an existing one to ensure accurate and reliable analysis.
-
Public Analyst and Duties:
Part VII of the Food Rules outlines the appointment of a Public Analyst, detailing their duties and related ancillary matters.
-
Rule 52 of the Food Rules (2011):
Lists food items and prescribes the minimum quantity required for preparing a sample for analysis.
It is statutorily presumed that the specified amount is the minimum necessary for an authentic Public Analyst’s report.
The prosecution of several offences under Chapter IV of the PFA Act depends on this report.
-
Mandatory Nature of Rule 52:
The court held that Rule 52 is mandatory. Any deviation would not only prejudice the accused during trial but also infringe on their right to a fair trial, as guaranteed under Article 10-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
-
Offence under Section 22(1) of the PFA Act:
The offence with which the Petitioner is charged does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
Conclusion:
The court emphasizes the critical role of proper sampling and laboratory analysis in enforcing the PFA Act. The mandatory nature of Rule 52 ensures that the accused's right to a fair trial is protected, highlighting the importance of adhering to prescribed procedures to uphold justice.