Summary: (a) Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011---- ----Ss. 13 & 36---Seizure of vehicle by Food Safety Officer---Release on superdari/interim custody---Scope---Petitioner sought release of vehicle seized by Assistant Food Safety Officer in connection with crime report under Ss.22-A, 23 and 24 of Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011---Special Court dismissed application on ground that it was filed after seven days and vehicle had stood automatically forfeited---High Court held that seizure and release provisions under S.13 must be construed purposively---Special Court may pass order for interim custody of seized item pending trial, and release of property during proceedings neither absolves accused nor prejudices trial---Purpose is to prevent needless deterioration, deprivation and loss of value of property, subject to surety and final determination. Cited Case: • Lung Fung Chinese Restaurant PLD 2021 SC 684 (b) Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011---- ----S. 13(3), (4) & (5)---Application for release within seven days---Automatic forfeiture---Vehicle---Applicability---Although S.13 refers to seizure of food, apparatus, utensil or vehicle in earlier subsections, the legislative scheme did not include “vehicle” within automatic forfeiture under S.13(5)---The omission of “vehicle” from automatic forfeiture provision was deliberate and significant---Court cannot add or omit words in statute under guise of interpretation---Vehicle was therefore not automatically forfeited merely because release application was filed after seven days. Cited Cases: • Khan Gul Khan v. Daraz Khan 2010 SCMR 539 • Deputy Registrar/Representative of Employees of Federal Shariat Court v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2019 Islamabad 591 • Crescent Jute Products Ltd. v. Government of the Punjab PLD 2004 Lahore 686 (c) Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011---- ----S. 13---Food Safety Officer---Seizure powers---Regulatory regimes---Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011 contains three regulatory regimes: Food Safety Officer, Food Authority and Special Court---Each performs distinct statutory function---Food Safety Officer may seize food, apparatus, utensil or vehicle and must prepare statement describing seized items and deliver copy to person from whom items were seized---Person aggrieved may approach Special Court under S.13(3), which may confirm seizure or order return of seized items. (d) Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011---- ----S. 36---Final order regarding seized property---Power of Special Court after conclusion of trial---Interim release of vehicle does not prevent Special Court from passing final order regarding confiscation or forfeiture after evidence and conclusion of trial---If trial Court ultimately concludes that seized vehicle is liable to confiscation or forfeiture, it may pass appropriate order under S.36 of Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011---Interim custody therefore does not defeat statutory purpose. (e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S. 516-A---Interim custody of case property---Vehicle---Principles---Application for interim custody must be decided expeditiously with cogent reasons for release or refusal---Court must exercise discretion judicially while determining entitlement to possession, subject to bond/surety equal to value of property and clear terms in bond---Interim custody of vehicle neither prejudices trial nor gives clean chit to accused, and recipient remains bound to produce vehicle whenever required by Court. Cited Case: • Ashan Ali Dawach v. The State 2025 SCMR 1041 (f) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Arts. 23 & 24---Right to property---Vehicle seized under Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011---Continued custody without lawful basis---Effect---Every citizen has right to acquire, hold and dispose of property subject to law, and no person can be deprived of property except in accordance with law---Withholding vehicle without cogent reason, especially where petitioner produced ownership documents and no rival claimant existed, would infringe constitutional property rights---Court must protect individual rights while ensuring enforcement of law. (g) Criminal proceedings---- ----Vehicle seized in food offence---Whether case property---Owner not nominated as accused---Effect---Vehicle was neither used for commission of offence in sense attracting penal liability nor was it itself adulterated food or prohibited article---Petitioner was not accused in crime report but merely owner of vehicle which had been rented out---No material showed that petitioner knew of transportation of offending substance---Vehicle could not be retained indefinitely merely on assumption that it was case property. Cited Cases: • Zaheer Abbas v. Muzafar Khan 2016 YLR Note 21 Lahore • Sheikh Saqab Kapoor v. The State 2009 YLR 602 Lahore • Muhammad Ajmal v. The State 2025 MLD 533 Quetta (h) Superdari---- ----Vehicle---No rival claimant---Ordinary rule---Where no rival claimant exists for superdari of vehicle, vehicle should ordinarily be released to person from whom it was taken or to person establishing lawful ownership, subject to satisfaction of Court and furnishing of surety---Petitioner produced relevant ownership documents and no competing claim was shown. (i) Constitutional jurisdiction---- ----Art. 199---Certiorari---Alternate remedy not availed---Patent illegality/excess of jurisdiction---Maintainability---Where order suffers from patent illegality, absence/excess of jurisdiction, misdirection or error apparent on face of record, constitutional petition may be entertained even if appeal or revision remedy exists---Special Court wrongly presumed automatic forfeiture of vehicle under S.13(5), Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011---Such error amounted to illegal exercise of jurisdiction and warranted interference under Art.199. Cited Cases: • Rahim Shah v. Chief Election Commissioner of Pakistan PLD 1973 SC 24 • Adeel-ur-Rehman v. Federation of Pakistan 2005 PTD 172 SC • Riaz Hussain v. Board of Revenue 1991 SCMR 2307 • Ahad Sharif alias Muhammad Ahad v. Javed Tariq 2006 SCMR 1356 • Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi v. Additional District and Sessions Judge 1994 SCMR 1299 • Nagina Silk Mill, Lyallpur v. Income Tax Officer PLD 1963 SC 322 • Pakistan v. Ziauddin PLD 1962 SC 440 • Messrs S.A. Haroon v. Collector of Customs, Karachi PLD 1959 SC 177 • Kinza Anwar v. Office of the Ombudsman for Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace 2022 CLC 1477 Islamabad (j) Constitutional jurisdiction---- ----Impugned order based on erroneous presumption---Release of seized vehicle---High Court held that Special Court acted with impulse and committed error apparent on face of record by treating vehicle as automatically forfeited---Such order amounted to illegal exercise of jurisdiction---Constitutional petition was competent and liable to be accepted. (k) Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011---- ----Seized vehicle lying under open sky---Depreciation and deterioration---Interim custody---Where seized vehicle was lying dormant under open sky and likely to deteriorate, depreciate or be misused/damaged if retained, release on interim custody was justified subject to surety bond and verification of ownership---Retention of vehicle served no useful purpose where final forfeiture could still be considered after trial under S.36 of the Act. Disposition: Constitutional petition was accepted; impugned order dated 15.01.2026 passed by Senior Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate Section 30, Kasur acting as Special Court was set aside; vehicle bearing registration No.BK-320 was directed to be released to petitioner subject to submission of surety bond of Rs.1,000,000 with one surety in like amount to satisfaction of Trial Court and verification of ownership; no order as to costs.

Summary: (a) Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011 ----Ss. 40, 43(1), 43(2), & 45A(2)---Special Court—Jurisdiction—Scope of supervisory and revisional control—Criminal revision before Additional Sessions Judge against order of Special Court—Competence—Under S.40 of the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011, offences under the Act are triable exclusively by the Special Court established thereunder—S.45A(2) expressly bars all other courts from transferring, revising, or interfering in proceedings of the Special Court under Ss. 426, 491 or 498 Cr.P.C.—No revisional or appellate jurisdiction vests in the Sessions Court—Orders of the Special Court are amenable only to constitutional or inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution or S.561-A Cr.P.C.—Criminal revision entertained and decided by Additional Sessions Judge was thus coram non judice and void ab initio. Cited Case: • Punjab Food Authority v. Amanat Ali and others (PLD 2020 Lahore 599) (b) Interpretation of statutes ----Coram non judice—Meaning and effect—Decision rendered by a forum lacking lawful authority is a nullity in law—Exercise of jurisdiction without statutory competence cannot be cured by consent or acquiescence—Orders passed in excess of jurisdiction are void and liable to be set aside at any stage. (c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 561-A---Inherent powers of High Court—Scope in proceedings under special law—Since S.45A(2) of the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011 does not exclude application of Ss. 497 and 561-A Cr.P.C., the High Court retains jurisdiction to intervene in appropriate circumstances to prevent abuse of process or secure ends of justice—However, subordinate criminal courts have no parallel revisional competence over orders of the Special Court. (d) Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011 ----S. 43---Special Court procedure—Trial of offences—The Special Court constituted under the Act exercises exclusive jurisdiction over offences under the PFA Act, following the procedure of Chapter XX Cr.P.C. in non-summary trials, and its orders are final except where the Act specifically provides an appellate forum. (g) Disposition— Writ petition allowed—Order dated 11.06.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Depalpur, set aside being without lawful authority—Order of the Special Court dated 28.01.2025 restored—Clarified that remedy against orders of the Special Court lies only before the High Court under S.561-A Cr.P.C. or Art.199 of the Constitution.

Summary: (a) Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011 ----Ss. 22-A, 24-A & 45-A---- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 ----S. 382-A---- Limitation Act, 1908 ----Ss. 5 & 14---- Criminal appeal---Conviction under Punjab Food Authority Act---Jurisdiction of appellate forum---Limitation---Scope---Appellant convicted under S. 24-A of Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011 by Magistrate; sentenced to one month’s simple imprisonment and fine---Appeal erroneously filed before Additional Sessions Judge, which forum lacked jurisdiction under S. 45-A, Act of 2011---Said appeal dismissed as not maintainable after over seven months; appellant then filed fresh appeal before High Court along with application under S. 5, Limitation Act, 1908 seeking condonation of delay---Held, proper remedy against conviction under S. 24-A lies directly to High Court within thirty days under S. 45-A---Appellant did not challenge dismissal order of Additional Sessions Judge; conviction thus remained intact---Prosecuting remedy before wrong forum does not per se constitute bona fide mistake or due diligence to justify exclusion of time under Ss. 5 or 14, Limitation Act---Failure to acquaint with jurisdictional provisions amounts to negligence of counsel; not a valid ground for condonation---No cogent or convincing explanation furnished---Delay fatal to appeal. Cited Cases: • Rehmatullah v. Muhammad Ikram 1999 MLD 1622 • Abdul Ghani v. Ghulam Sarwar PLD 1977 SC 102 • Chaudhry Muhammad Sharif v. Muhammad Ali Khan 1975 SCMR 259 (b) Limitation Condonation of delay---Principles---Condonation is discretionary, not automatic---Accused must establish sufficient cause with bona fide reasons and diligent conduct---Mere plea of having approached wrong forum, without more, is insufficient. Disposition: Appeal and connected application dismissed as barred by limitation. Conviction and sentence maintained.

Summary: (a) Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011 (as amended in 2016) ----Ss. 22-A, 23, 28 & 32---Adulterated food---Synthetic milk---Quantity threshold under statutory schedule---Failure to prove actual production or seizure---Conviction set aside---Appellants were convicted under various sections of the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011 for allegedly operating a synthetic milk manufacturing unit---Held, prosecution failed to prove ownership of premises or show appellants were actively manufacturing synthetic milk---No synthetic milk was seized; only ingredients were allegedly recovered---Schedule under S.22-A requires minimum threshold quantities to constitute an offence, but prosecution neither quantified recovered substances nor established whether threshold was met---No laboratory analysis was conducted to verify that the substances were indeed adulterants---Conviction based on such incomplete and unverified evidence could not be sustained. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Younis v. Essa Jan 2009 SCMR 1169 **(b) Criminal trial---Appreciation of evidence---Failure to produce material evidence---Consequences---Punjab Food Authority raid---Prosecution failed to exhibit or produce articles allegedly recovered during raid---No documentary proof tendered in evidence to establish seizure or chemical composition of said items---Violation of Rule 14-F, Part-B, Chapter-24, Volume III of the Lahore High Court Rules which mandates production of circumstantial articles in court and proof of their identity through witnesses---Trial court overlooked this vital procedural lapse---Such omission rendered prosecution evidence deficient and insufficient for conviction. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Rafique v. The State PLJ 2011 SC 191 (c) Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011 ----S. 13(2)---Failure to comply with statutory requirement---Non-preparation and delivery of seizure memo---Due process violation---Food Safety Officer failed to prepare and deliver a statement describing seized food items as required under S.13(2)---No proof that memo or seizure form was provided to the accused or mailed---Mandatory statutory requirement aimed at ensuring fair trial and transparency was not fulfilled---This legal flaw adversely affected the credibility of the prosecution’s case. (d) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (X of 1984) ----Art. 129(g)---Withholding best evidence---Adverse presumption---Failure of prosecution to produce chemical analysis report, seizure memo, or actual seized articles led to presumption under Art.129(g) that evidence would have been unfavourable---Prosecution’s deliberate withholding of material evidence inferred to be with ulterior motive---Conviction based on such deficient record could not be maintained. **(e) Criminal trial---Benefit of doubt---Scope---Synthetic milk production not proved---Evidence of PW-1 admitted no synthetic milk was seized---Presence of raw materials alone insufficient to establish offence without proving active preparation or intent---Prosecution failed to send material for chemical analysis---Held, in criminal jurisprudence, even a single doubt is enough for acquittal---Appellants extended benefit of doubt and acquitted. Disposition: Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellants acquitted. Sureties discharged.