In 2025, an FIR (No. 400/63-25) was registered against a man named Muhammad Arshad, who owned a fertilizer shop. Authorities conducted a raid at his store and discovered that the fertilizer available in sealed bags was allegedly adulterated and substandard. Samples were taken from those sealed bags and sent to the laboratory for testing. The laboratory report later confirmed that the fertilizer was indeed adulterated, leading to the registration of a criminal case against Arshad.
Following the FIR, Arshad filed a pre-arrest bail petition before the Bahawalpur Bench of the High Court. The matter came before Justice Waheed Khan, who approached the case with a critical and analytical perspective.
During the hearing, the learned judge asked a very simple yet powerful question from the authorities:
“When you took the fertilizer samples from the sealed bags and they were found adulterated, did you ask the shopkeeper where he purchased those sealed bags from? Who was the supplier? Who was the manufacturer?”
Surprisingly, neither the investigating officer nor the concerned fertilizer authority had an answer.
Justice Waheed Khan highlighted a serious flaw in the investigative approach. He observed that authorities often prosecute small vendors without pursuing the actual source of the illegal or adulterated product. He drew comparisons with other regulatory and criminal situations:
- When narcotics are recovered from a small street-level dealer, an FIR is registered against him, but authorities often fail to trace the larger network or supplier behind the drugs.
- When food authorities recover adulterated milk from a small shopkeeper, the shopkeeper faces prosecution, but the supplier or manufacturer from whom the milk was purchased is rarely investigated.
- Similarly, when a drug inspector finds counterfeit or substandard medicines at a medical store, the store owner may face legal action, yet the factory or distributor responsible for producing the fake medicine often escapes immediate scrutiny.
The court questioned why enforcement agencies fail to target the source of the problem. Why are the factories, distributors, and bulk suppliers, those who manufacture or distribute adulterated products, often left untouched, while small vendors become the primary accused?
Since the authorities could not provide satisfactory answers to these questions, the court emphasized the need for a more effective enforcement mechanism that focuses on the root cause of such offenses rather than only the end sellers.
Eventually, during the proceedings, the police informed the court that the shopkeeper from whose store the adulterated fertilizer was recovered would no longer be treated as the primary accused. Instead, he would be converted into a prosecution witness against the factory owners and suppliers from whom the product had been purchased.
As a result:
- Arshad’s pre-arrest bail petition was withdrawn,
- His arrest was halted, and
- The investigation shifted towards the actual manufacturers and suppliers responsible for the adulterated fertilizer.
This judgment is particularly significant for lawyers and legal practitioners dealing with cases related to:
- Food authority regulations
- Drug authority prosecutions
- Fertilizer regulatory cases
- Narcotics investigations
- Bail petitions in regulatory offenses
The decision highlights an important principle: true accountability lies at the source of wrongdoing. Targeting small vendors alone cannot eliminate the problem if the large-scale manufacturers and suppliers of illegal or adulterated products remain untouched.
In my view, judgments like this play a vital role in improving the justice system and strengthening regulatory enforcement. If authorities focus on those who produce and distribute illegal products in bulk, rather than only punishing small retailers, the root of such problems can be effectively addressed.
For instance, if narcotics recovered from a street dealer lead investigators to the supplier, then to the distributor, and ultimately to the smuggler bringing the drugs across the border, the problem can be tackled at its origin.
Similarly, if the manufacturers responsible for producing adulterated goods are identified and prosecuted, the entire chain of illegal supply can be dismantled.
Such judicial reasoning represents a progressive step toward fair investigation and meaningful accountability in the legal system.