2026 P Cr. L J 728

 2026 P Cr. L J 728

[Lahore]

Before Abher Gul Khan, J

ZAIN-UL-ABIDEEN alias Zain---Appellant

Versus

The STATE and another---Respondents

Criminal Appeal No. 132000 of 2018, decided on 1st August, 2025.

Punjab Food Authority Act (XVI of 2011)---

----Ss. 22-A, 24-A & 45-A---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5---

Substandard and injurious food stuff---Appreciation of evidence---

Appeal before High Court, filing of---Limitation---Condonation of

delay in filing appeal---Scope---Accused-appellant was charged for

supplying unsafe food---Sentence upon the appellant was awarded

under S.24-A of the Act of 2011---Evidently, the appellant, rather

than filing an appeal before the Court of Session, should have

approached the High Court directly, because the appropriate legal

remedy in such cases laid in filing an appeal under S.45-A of the Act

of 2011 and not before a subordinate forum---Therefore, any person

aggrieved by a sentence or order passed under S.24-A of the Act of

2011 must file an appeal before the High Court within the

prescribed limitation period of thirty days---Appellant was convicted

and sentenced by the Magistrate on 15.05.2017 and instead of

approaching the High Court, as required under S.45-A of the Act of

2011, he filed an appeal before the Court of Sessions on 22.05.2017, a

forum that did not have the jurisdiction to entertain such an appeal

under the said Act---Appeal remained pending before the Court of

Sessions for several months and was ultimately dismissed on

21.12.2017 on the ground of being incompetent and not

maintainable due to the lack of jurisdiction---Following that

dismissal, the appellant filed the present appeal before the High

Court on 19.01.2018, once again challenging the original conviction

dated 15.05.2017, as handed down by the Magistrate---Along with

this appeal, the appellant also submitted an application under S.5 of

the Limitation Act, 1908, seeking condonation of delay in filing the

appeal before the appropriate forum---However, a significant

procedural lapse on the part of the appellant was evident, who did

not challenge or seek to set aside the judgment dated 21.12.2017

passed by the Court of Sessions, which dismissed his earlier appeal--

-Consequently, the earlier dismissal order remained intact and

unchallenged, which might have implications on the maintainability

and admissibility of the present appeal before the High Court Admittedly, the High Court, in the interest ofjustice, often exercised

discretion to condone delay in appeals filed by convicted persons,

such condonation is not automatic nor is it a matter of routine

practice---Certainly, it is not to be treated as a rigid or mechanical

rule that applied in every case, regardless of circumstances---

Condonation of delay, particularly in appeals against conviction

must be considered if sufficient cause is demonstrated by the

accused-appellant---Onus lies on the convict to present cogent,

convincing, and reasonable explanations for the delay---Simply

relying on the plea that the delay resulted from pursuing a remedy

before an incorrect forum did not meet the approach required under

the law---Mere procedural mistake, unless accompanied by bona fide

reasons and supported by diligent conduct, could not be considered a

reasonable justification for the condonation of delay---In such

circumstances, the High Court was not persuaded to find any sufficient

or lawful justification for condoning the delay in the filing of the

present appeal---Even otherwise, the appellant could not be allowed to

take advantage of his own lapse, nor could the delay in filing the

present appeal be excused merely on the basis of having earlier

approached the wrong forum---Appeal suffered from a fatal defect of

limitation, thus, was dismissed.

Rehmanullah v. Muhammad Ikram and 7 others 1999 MLD 1622 rel.

Hassan Raza Sheikh for Appellant.

Ms. Sumara Shafi, DDPP for the State.

Muhammad Akhtar Khan for the Complainant.

Date of hearing: 1st August, 2025.

JUDGMENT

ABHER GUL KHAN, J.---Pursuant to the filing of a complaint by the

Punjab Food Authority alleging commission of offence under Sections

22-A and 24-A of the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011, as amended by

the Act of 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2011"), the

learned Judicial Magistrate Section-30, Lahore took cognizance of the

matter and proceeded to summon the appellant, Zain-ul-Abideen alias

Zain. After the conclusion of trial proceedings, the learned trial court,

vide judgment dated 15.05.2017, found the appellant guilty of the

offence under Section 24-A of the Act of 2011, sentenced him to

undergo simple imprisonment for a term of one month and also

directed to pay a fine of Rs.100,000/-. Considering that the sentence of

imprisonment awarded was less than one year, the learned Judicial

Magistrate, while exercising discretion under Section 382-A, Cr.P.C.

ordered postponement of the execution of the sentence so as to provide the appellant an opportunity to file an appeal, subject to his

furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.200,000/-. Feeling aggrieved by

his conviction and sentence, the appellant preferred to file an appeal

before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore. However, that

appeal was dismissed through judgment dated 21.12.2017 on the

ground that it was not maintainable, as the forum approached lacked

jurisdiction to entertain an appeal under the provisions of the Act of

2011.

2. Heard. File perused.

3. At the very outset, this Court has observed that the sentence upon

the appellant was awarded under Section 24-A of the Act of 2011. In

light of this, it becomes evident that the appellant, rather than filing an

appeal before the Court of Sessions, should have approached this

Court directly. This is because the appropriate legal remedy in such

cases lies in filing an appeal under Section 45-A of the Act of 2011 and

not before a subordinate forum. Therefore, any person aggrieved by a

sentence or order passed under Section 24-A must file an appeal

before this Court within the prescribed limitation period of thirty days.

To facilitate clarity and understanding, Section 45-A of the Act of 2011

is reproduced below:-

45A. Appeal against conviction. (1) The Authority or the person

sentenced by a Special Court may, within thirty days from the

date of communication of the order, file an appeal against a

final order of the Special Court to Lahore High Court.

(2) Save as provided in this Act or rules, no Court shall take

cognizance or revise a sentence or transfer any case from a

Special Court or make order under section 426, 491 or 498 of the

Code or have jurisdiction of any kind in respect of any

proceedings of the Special Court.

From the above circumstances, a foremost legal question arises that

whether the appellant s choice to pursue his earlier remedy before an

incorrect forum, which ultimately led to the dismissal of his appeal as

not maintainable, can justify the filing of a fresh appeal before this

Court beyond the statutory limitation period. In this regard, it is

important to note with concern, that the appellant was convicted and

sentenced by the learned Magistrate, Lahore on 15.05.2017 and instead

of approaching this Court, as required under Section 45-A of the Act of

2011, he filed an appeal before the Court of Sessions on 22.05.2017, a

forum that did not have the jurisdiction to entertain such an appeal

under the said Act. The appeal remained pending before the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore for several months, and was

ultimately dismissed on 21.12.2017 on the ground of being incompetent and not maintainable due to the lack of jurisdiction.

Following that dismissal, the appellant filed the present appeal before

this Court on 19.01.2018, once again challenging the original

conviction dated 15.05.2017, as handed down by the learned

Magistrate, Lahore. Along with this appeal, the appellant also

submitted an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908,

seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the

appropriate forum. However, a significant procedural lapse on the

part of the appellant is evident, who did not challenge or seek to set

aside the judgment dated 21.12.2017 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Lahore, which dismissed his earlier appeal.

Consequently, the earlier dismissal order remains intact and

unchallenged, which may have implications on the maintainability

and admissibility of the present appeal before this Court.

4. This Court is mindful of the fact that the appellant s earlier

appeal remained pending before the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Lahore for a period exceeding seven months. However, it is

both surprising and unfortunate that during this entire duration,

neither the appellant nor his legal counsel ever raised or addressed

the crucial legal issue regarding the jurisdictional incompetency of

the appellate forum and instead, they passively awaited a favorable

outcome. Only after their efforts proved unsuccessful and the appeal

was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, they chose to file the present

appeal before this Court. While it is true that this Court, in the interest

of justice, often exercises discretion to condone delay in appeals filed

by convicted persons, such condonation is not automatic nor is it a

matter of routine practice. It is certainly not to be treated as a rigid or

mechanical rule that applies in every case, regardless of

circumstances. The condonation of delay, particularly in appeals

against conviction must be considered if sufficient cause is

demonstrated by the accused-appellant. The onus lies on the convict

to present cogent, convincing, and reasonable explanations for the

delay. Simply relying on the plea that the delay resulted from

pursuing a remedy before an incorrect forum does not meet the

approach required under the law. A mere procedural mistake, unless

accompanied by bona fide reasons and supported by diligent conduct,

cannot be considered a reasonable justification for the condonation of

delay. In support of the above view, reliance is placed on the case

reported as Rehmatullah v. Muhammad Ikram and 7 others (1999

MLD 1622). Although the said judgment pertained to an appeal against

acquittal, yet the legal principle enunciated therein holds relevance to

the present matter. The relevant excerpt from the afore-said judgment

is as follows: This Court affirmed the finding of the District Judge. In petition for

special leave to appeal the Supreme Court held that prosecuting

remedies before wrong forum hardly amounted to a bona fide

mistake and did not constitute due diligence the essential

requirement of section 14 of the Limitation Act. Similarly in

another case titled Abdul Ghani v. Ghulam Sarwar (PLD 1977 SC

102) it was held that defence given by a lawyer that remedy in a

wrong Court was prosecuted, is not a good ground for exclusion

of time for limitation either under section 5 or section 14 of

Limitation Act, 1908. In the case of Chaudhry Muhammad Sharif

v. Muhammad Ali Khan and others (1975 SCMR 259) it was held

that failure to acquaint himself with relevant provisions of law

relating to jurisdiction of Court amounted to negligence on part of

counsel and hence the delay was not condoned.

5. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is not persuaded

to find any sufficient or lawful justification for condoning the delay

in the filing of the present appeal. Even otherwise, the appellant

cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own lapse, nor can the

delay in filing the present appeal be excused merely on the basis of

having earlier approached the wrong forum. Accordingly, the appeal

suffers from a fatal defect of limitation, thus, is liable to be dismissed.

Resultantly, the instant appeal along with Crl.Misc.No.1 of 2018

stands dismissed.

JK/Z-8/L Appeal dismissed.