Tanveer Zaffar vs State etc.

Stereo. HC JD A 38

JUDGMENT SHEET

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT

MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Writ Petition No.11530 of 2025

Tanveer Zafar VS The State and three others

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing 19.05.2026.

Petitioner Sardar Mazhar Abbas Mahar, Advocate for the represented by: petitioner.

Respondent Mr. Javed Iqbal, Assistant Director (Legal), Punjab No.4 represented Food Authority.

by:

State by: Mr. Sanam Farid Khan Balouch, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

SADIQ MAHMUD KHURRAM, J.- Through this petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the following prayer has been made:-

“Under these circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be accepted and impugned order dated 12.09.2025 passed by learned respondent No.2 may kindly be declared illegal, against the law, facts, without lawful authority, without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be set aside and accepted the application of the petitioner for superdari and alleged items two Chilling machines (capacity 500 litters), a double doorDeep Freezer, two while (sic) plastic drums, two steel boxes, garber machine, gas

W.P. No. 11530 of 2025

cylinder with stove, water cooler, two yellow plastic drums be handed over to the petitioner on superdari, in the supreme interest of justice.”

2.Brief facts of the case relating to the filing of this petition are that on 28.05.2025 the case FIR No.1097 of 2025 was registered at Police Station Basti Malook, District Multan in respect of offences under Sections 22-A, 22-1, 23 & 27 of the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011, and during investigation of the case, two Chilling machines (capacity 500 litters), a double door Deep Freezer, two white plastic Drums, two steel Boxes, Garber machine, a gas Cylinder with Stove, a water Cooler and two yellow plastic Drums were seized by the Food Safety Officer under exercise of his powers under section 13 of the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011, however, when the petitioner sought the restoration of said articles by way of submitting an application before the court concerned that application was rejected vide order dated 12.09.2025, hence, this petition.

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner inter-alia contended that the order dated 12.09.2025 passed by the learned trial court whereby the application of the petitioner seeking restoration of the articles seized during investigation of the case F.I.R. No.1097 of 2025 registered at Police Station Basti Malook, District Multan, was dismissed was liable to be set aside being against the facts and law; that the petitioner being the owner of the said seized articles had a right of enjoying their possession under Article 23 & 24 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of the Pakistan; that the delay in submitting the application under Section 13 of the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011 was occasioned by the death of the mother of the petitioner; that no valid

W.P. No. 11530 of 2025

reason had been offered by the learned trial court for rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking the restoration of the seized articles.

4.The learned Assistant Advocate General and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Punjab Food Authority have submitted that the order dated 12.09.2025 passed by the learned trial court whereby the application of the petitioner for restoring the seized articles seized during the investigation of case FIR No.1097 of 2025 registered at Police Station Basti Malook, District Multan, was dismissed, was passed in accordance with the law and did not merit any interference by this Court.

5.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Advocate General ,the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Punjab Food Authority and perused the record with their able assistance.

6.The perusal of record reveals that on 28.05.2025 the case F.I.R.

No.1097 of 2025 was registered at the Police Station Basti Malook, District Multan in respect of offences under Sections 22-A, 22-1, 23 & 27 of the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011, and during investigation of the case, two Chilling machines (capacity 500 litters), a double door Deep Freezer, two white plastic Drums, two steel Boxes, Garber machine, a gas Cylinder with Stove, a water Cooler and two yellow plastic Drums were seized by the Food Safety Officer under exercise of his powers under Section 13 of the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011, however, when the petitioner sought the restoration of said articles by way of submitting an application before

W.P. No. 11530 of 2025

the court concerned that application was rejected vide order dated 12.09.2025. It is a fact admitted on the part of the petitioner that he had submitted an application seeking restoration of the seized articles before the learned trial court only on 21.08.2025 whereas the articles were seized on 28.05.2025 by the Food Safety Officer. The provisions of Section 13 of the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011 are very clear in the manner that it has been made incumbent upon the claimant who seeks the restoration of the articles seized by the Food Safety Officer to make such an application seeking the restoration of the seized articles within seven days of the seizure and if he fails to do that then, under the provisions of Section 13 of the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011, the articles seized shall be forfeited to the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011 after the lapse of seven days. In this regard, section 13 of the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011 reads as under:- “13. Powers of Food Safety Officer.– (1) A Food Safety Officer may

(a)take sample of any food or any substance, which appears to him to be intended for sale, or has been sold as food;

(b)seize any food, apparatus or utensil which appears to the Food Safety Officer to be in contravention of this Act, the rules or the regulations;

(c)enter or seal any premises where he believes any food is prepared, preserved, packaged, stored, conveyed, distributed or sold, examine any such food and examine anything that he believes is used, or capable of being used for such preparation, preservation, packaging, storing, conveying, distribution or sale;

(ca)impose fine on a food operator if the Authority has delegated such power to him;]

(d)open and examine any package which, he believes, to contain any food;

(e)examine any book or documents with respect to any food and make copies of or take extracts from the book or document;

(f)demand the production of the identity card, the business registration certificate, licence or any other relevant document from a food operator;

(g)mark, seal or otherwise secure, weigh, count or measure any food or appliance; and

(h)search and seize any vehicle carrying food.

W.P. No. 11530 of 2025

(2)A Food Safety Officer shall prepare a statement describing the food, apparatus, utensil or vehicle seized and shall deliver a copy of the statement to the person from whom it is seized or, if such person is not present, send such copy to him by mail.

(3)A person claiming back anything seized under sub-section (1) may, within seven days of the seizure, apply to the Court and the Court may confirm such seizure, wholly or in part, or may order that it be restored to the claimant.

(4)If the Court confirms the seizure of the food, apparatus or utensil, it shall be forfeited to the Food Authority or the Court may direct that such food, apparatus, utensil may be destroyed at the cost of the owner or person in whose possession it was found.

(5)If an application is not made within seven days under sub- section (3), the food, apparatus or utensil seized, shall be forfeited to the Food Authority.

(6)Any person may make an application in writing to the Food Safety Officer asking him to purchase.” (emphasis supplied) The perusal of the above provision of Section 13 of the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011 makes it mandatory for the claimant to submit an application for the restoration of seized articles within seven days to the court concerned. For the fact that the petitioner submitted his application only on 21.08.2025 i.e. after more than three months of the seizure of articles, therefore, the order passed by the learned trial court does not suffer from any illegality rather is in accordance with the law applicable. Though the petitioner had taken a stance, the petitioner could not approach the Court concerned for restoration of the seized articles within seven days because of the unfortunate death of his mother,however, in this regard there is no document placed in the shape of the Death Registration Certificate or any affidavit which could prove this reason for the failure of the petitioner to approach the court concerned for the restoration of the seized articles. At the same time, it is also a fact that the trial of the case FIR No.1097 of 2025 registered at Police Station Basti Malook, District Multan, is still continuing; therefore, the learned trial court is directed to pass an

W.P. No. 11530 of 2025

appropriate order with regard to the disposal of the articles seized at the time of passing of the judgment.

7.In view of the above discussion, this Court has come to the conclusion that the order dated 12.09.2025 passed by the learned trial court was passed in accordance with the law and cannot be interfered in any manner by this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, hence, this petition fails and is dismissed.

(SADIQ MAHMUD KHURRAM)

JUDGE

*Bilal/*

Approved for Reporting

Judge