Possession of dead meat is also culpable under the Punjab Animal Slaughter Control Act, 1963.
 |
| Possession of dead meat is also culpable under the Punjab Animal Slaughter Control Act, 1963. |
**خلاصہ**:
1. **الزامات**
: درخواست گزار ضمانت کی درخواست کر رہے ہیں جو پنجاب فوڈ اتھارٹی ایکٹ، 2011 کی دفعات 22-A اور 24 کے تحت مقدمے میں گرفتار ہوئے ہیں۔ مقدمہ غیر معیاری گوشت کی منتقلی کے الزامات پر مبنی ہے۔
2. **استغاثہ کا مؤقف*
*: 16.05.2024 کو فوڈ سیفٹی ٹیم نے 600 کلوگرام گوشت پایا جو انسانی استعمال کے لیے ناقابلِ قبول تھا، اور اسے موقع پر ہی تلف کر دیا۔ درخواست گزار صحیح دستاویزات فراہم کرنے میں ناکام رہے۔
3. **دفاع کا مؤقف**
: درخواست گزاروں کا کہنا ہے کہ الزامات جھوٹے ہیں اور ان کی گوشت کی فراہمی کی تاریخ بے داغ ہے۔ ان کا کہنا ہے کہ وہ تازہ گوشت لے کر جا رہے تھے جس پر تصدیق شدہ اسٹیمپ موجود تھی۔
4. **عدالت کی رپورٹ*
*: عدالت نے سنجیدہ الزامات اور پنجاب اینیملز سلاٹر کنٹرول ایکٹ، 1963 کی خلاف ورزیوں کا ذکر کیا۔ عدالت نے اس بات پر زور دیا کہ یہ جرم عوامی صحت پر اثر انداز ہوتا ہے، اور اس معاملے کی سنگینی کی وجہ سے ضمانت کی درخواست مسترد کر دی۔
5. **فیصلہ**
: درخواست گزاروں کی ضمانت کی درخواست کو مسترد کر دیا گیا کیونکہ الزامات سنجیدہ نوعیت کے ہیں اور عوامی صحت کو خطرے میں ڈالتے ہیں۔
مزید معلومات یا سوالات کے لیے، براہ کرم پوچھیں!
Must read judgement
Form No: HCJD/C-121
ORDER SHEET
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE.
(JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT)
Case No.
Crl. Misc. No. 38478-B/2024
Naveed Tariq and another.
Versus
The State etc.
Sr.No.of
order/
Proceedings
Date of
order/
Proceedings
Order with signatures of Judge, and that of parties or counsel, where
necessary.
25.06.2024 Mr. Shameem Ahmad Pervez, Advocate for the
petitioners.
Mr. Muhammad Usman Saleem Chaudhary, Legal
Advisor Food Authority.
Ms. Asmat Parveen, Deputy District Public Prosecutor.
Through this petition under Section 497 Cr.P.C., petitioners
seek bail after arrest in case FIR No. 1320 dated 16.05.2024
registered at Police Station Thekriwala, District Faisalabad for
non bailable offences under sections 22-A (punishable up to five years’
imprisonment) & 24 (in this case 6 months’ imprisonment) of the Punjab Food
Authority Act, 2011.
2. As per prosecution story, on 16.05.2024 at about 03:00
p.m., Food Safety team inspected a vehicle bearing registration
No.8789-CAR and found 15 mounds/600 Kilograms meat which
was checked by Veterinary Officer Livestock Dr. Robi Tabassum
and declared it as unfit for human consumption; petitioners could
not produce any record of sale & purchase of said meat nor any
agreement or delivery challan in this respect during inspection;
quantity of dead meat was suspected to be transported at different
food points; resultantly was destroyed by the Food Safety team at
the spot.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that allegations
levelled against the petitioners are false because they have been
dealing with supply of meat for the last about 15/20 years with no
complaint whatsoever in this regard and on the day, they were
also carrying fresh meat with verified stamp of Incharge
slaughter house; further states that offences do not fall within the
prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C., and bail in such like
Crl. Misc. No. 38478-B of 2024
2
offences is a rule. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however
could not substantiate his arguments through any document on
record.
4. Learned legal advisor for Punjab Food Authority opposed the
bail with the submissions that the crime committed by the
petitioners is not only inhuman but also against the society
putting the lives of masses at stake. It is learnt that in routine
such dead meat is reportedly used in restaurants, banquets, food
kiosks and on renowned Shawarma points. Learned Deputy
District Public Prosecutor has also opposed the bail on the
ground that Destruction Form prepared by the food safety team
was also handed over to the petitioners at the site leaving no
chance of misstatement so as to provide a clue in favour of the
petitioners that they were carrying healthy meat. Further stated
that not falling in prohibitory clause does not provide premium to
petitioners to seek bail in offences which are considered against
the society.
5. Heard; record perused.
6. The material in the form of statements of veterinary doctor &
food safety officers, vehicle carrying dead meat, Destruction
Form, and non-provision of sale purchase record of said meat or
agreement for delivery or transportation to a certain food point or
certificate from a slaughter house, clearly indicate the criminal
liability of the petitioners, not only under penal provisions of
Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011 but under the provisions of the
Punjab Animals Slaughter Control Act, 1963 (the Act).
According to section 3(3) of the Act, a person shall not:
(a) sell, keep, store, transport, supply, offer or expose for sale,
or hawk any meat or carcass of a:
(i) haram animal or of an animal which died of, or has
suffered from contagious diseases or has been poisoned
to death, or died because of gunshot wound or
electrocution;
(ii) meat or carcass of any animal which has been
slaughtered in contravention of this Act or does not bear
the stamp, mark, tag or certification of the slaughterhouse specified by the concerned local authority;
Crl. Misc. No. 38478-B of 2024
3
Section-8 (2) of said Act prescribes the sentence of offence as
under;
“If a person contravenes any provision of clause (a) of
subsection (3) of section 3, he shall be punished with
imprisonment which may extend to eight years but which
shall not be less than four years and with fine which may
extend to five hundred thousand rupees but which shall not be
less than three hundred thousand rupees.”
(Emphasis supplied)
Under the Punjab Animals Slaughter Control Act, 1963,
Courts are authorized to presume the commission of offences
as reflected from following provision;
3A. Presumptions.- In every prosecution under this Act, the
court shall presume that any:
(a) meat or carcass found in possession of any person
who is, or has been, habitually selling, keeping,
storing, transporting, offering or exposing for sale, or
hawking the meat or carcass, was being sold, kept,
stored, transported, offered or exposed for sale or
hawked by such person;
(b) meat or carcass which does not bear the stamp, mark,
tag or certification of a slaughter-house has been
slaughtered in contravention of the Act.
Thus, if the allegations are not rebutted, the Court shall not
wait for formal proof rather presume the commission of
offence so as to punish the offenders.
7. It is trite that while dealing with bail petition Court can
consider as to what offence is made out from facts and
circumstance of the case. Reliance is placed on case reported
as “MUHAMMAD WAQAS versus THE STATE” (2002
SCMR 1370). Above offence under the Act is so serious that
for its prevention government has proposed a reward for
providing information about commission of such offence as
reflected from following provision of the Act;
“10. Reward to informers.– The court trying an offence
under this Act may direct that an amount not exceeding
seventy five percent of such sum as may be realized by way of
fine or under section 517 of the Code, be awarded to the
person or persons supplying information relating to the
commission of the offence under the Act.
Crl. Misc. No. 38478-B of 2024
4
8. There are serious allegations against the petitioners and eye
winking of such offence would open a gateway for such elements
to play with the health of citizens. Some of the diseases afflicted
due to consumption of such items last for years and even till
death but on the other hand healthy meat is safer to eat, it
enhances metabolism, tastes better, more hygienic and improves
immune system, therefore, by all means, offences committed by
the petitioners are against the society at large and a quantity of 15
mounds/600 Kilograms dead meat cannot be planted to set up a
fake case against the petitioners.
9. Though the offences do not fall within the prohibitory clause
of section 497, Cr.P.C. but it is not the rule of thumb to grant bail
to accused in offences not falling within such category as a
matter of right if the case falls in exceptions like offence against
society. Reliance in this respect is placed on case reported as
“MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE versus IMTIAZ BEGUM and 2
others” (2002 SCMR 442). Similar expressions are in cases
reported as “RASHAD IMRAN Versus The STATE and another”
(2022 SCMR 1304); “UMER KHAN Versus The STATE and
another” (2022 SCMR 216); “ALLAH YAR and 4 others
Versus The STATE and another” (2023 P Cr. L J Note 60):
“IRFAN SARWAR Versus The STATE” (2022 P Cr. L J Note
71). From the material evaluated tentatively, no ‘reasonable
grounds’ as contemplated in section 497 (2) Cr.P.C., are
available to extend concession of bail. Under such exceptional
circumstances, the petitioners do not deserve to be released on
bail. Hence, the titled petition is dismissed.
Signed on 02.07.2024.
M. Azhar*
(MUHAMMAD AMJAD RAFIQ)
JUDGE
Approved for reporting:
Judge