Vehicle Superdari: FCC Removes Milk Tanker Detachment Condition

Independently written and published by Shahbaz Shah Legal Journal.

A registered truck owner need not dismantle a milk tanker to obtain temporary custody where the equipment is capable of lawful use and separation may damage the vehicle. The Federal Constitutional Court reached that conclusion in Salman Rafique v. The State, allowing an appeal against a restrictive superdari order in an adulterated-milk prosecution. Judgment, page 2

The judgment is dated 19 August 2026 and was uploaded to the FCC judgment collection on 30 October. Justice Ali Baqar Najafi wrote for a bench also comprising Chief Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan. The relief concerns custody of the truck while the criminal case proceeds. Judgment, page 1

The condition challenged by the owner

Police registered FIR No. 4994/2025 at Raiwind City on 24 July 2025 under section 22-A of the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011. Two named accused allegedly transported adulterated milk. The truck and milk were taken into possession, and the milk was destroyed. Salman Rafique, the registered owner, sought superdari of the vehicle. Judgment, page 1

The Magistrate refused the application, and a criminal revision was dismissed on maintainability. The Lahore High Court then permitted interim custody against a Rs5 million surety bond, but required separation of the tanker from the truck. That order was challenged before the FCC. Judgment, page 1

The tanker had lawful transport uses

The High Court was concerned about possible repetition of the offence. The FCC examined what the equipment actually did: a tanker or chiller could carry pure milk as well as adulterated milk. It was transport equipment, rather than an essential component in manufacturing or preparing adulterated milk. The record did not establish an exclusively unlawful use. Judgment, page 2

The owner was not nominated as an accused. The judgment also records that he was not the manufacturer, transporter or driver, or the person who rented the vehicle to the accused for the alleged offence. Those facts mattered to his Article 24 right to use the vehicle lawfully. Judgment, page 4

The Court said that a later unlawful use would have its legal consequences. It did not consider that possibility sufficient to impair this owner’s vehicle through the disputed detachment condition. Judgment, page 4

Temporary custody should preserve utility

Superdari is intended to preserve property until final determination of a case. The FCC explained that a vehicle should ordinarily be entrusted to the registered owner or the appropriate person last in possession to protect it from decay and preserve its transport utility. Judgment, page 3

Separating the tanker could require mechanical intervention and leave the truck wholly or substantially unusable. Prolonged exposure in the open could also damage its body. Those were practical consequences for a court deciding interim custody, rather than reasons to regard dismantling as a harmless precaution. Judgment, page 4

Registration obligations remained relevant

The registration record described the vehicle as a truck and did not record installation of the tanker. The FCC discussed section 33 of the Provincial Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, requiring relevant alterations to be reported within fourteen days. It also noted the framework for suspension or cancellation of registration and appeals. Judgment, page 2

The record did not establish that the modification breached a prescribed standard or made the vehicle unfit. The custody ruling did not abolish alteration-reporting requirements. The question was whether the modification and apprehended misuse justified detachment in this case. Judgment, page 3

The order and its limits

The Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it and set aside the High Court order. It permitted temporary custody in accordance with law, subject to the final criminal decision and without alteration materially affecting the truck’s condition or value. Judgment, page 4

The result permits lawful use while preserving the asset for the case. It is not an acquittal, a final ruling against confiscation, or an express exemption from every security requirement. The operative safeguards continue to govern possession. Judgment, page 5

Frequently asked questions

Can the tanker remain attached during superdari?

Yes, under these facts. The Court rejected separation because the equipment had lawful uses and dismantling could damage the vehicle or make it substantially unusable. Judgment, page 3.

Was the registered owner an accused?

The judgment records that he was not nominated as an accused. It distinguished him from the manufacturer, transporter, driver and person who rented the vehicle to the accused for the alleged offence. Judgment, page 4.

Did the FCC acquit the persons accused in the milk case?

No. It decided temporary vehicle custody, subject to the final outcome of the criminal proceedings. Judgment, page 4.

Were vehicle alteration requirements abolished?

No. The Court discussed the reporting duty under section 33 and the registration remedies. The custody ruling did not erase those obligations. Judgment, page 2.

Did the order expressly waive every security requirement?

No. The operative direction allows temporary custody in accordance with law, subject to the criminal case and preservation of condition and value. It does not expressly prescribe a replacement bond amount or waive all security. Judgment, page 4.

Sources and complete judgment

• Read the full judgment.
• Download judgment PDF.
• Judgment particulars and searchable summary.
• Official court PDF.
• Federal Constitutional Court judgment collection.