Salman Rafique v. The State and others

Background

Background

FCC allows interim custody of Salman Rafique’s truck with its tanker intact, rejecting dismantling as a condition in the adulterated-milk case.

A truck carrying allegedly adulterated milk was seized in Raiwind. Its registered owner was not named as an accused. The High Court permitted superdari subject to a Rs5 million surety and separation of the tanker.

Legal questions

Legal questions

Could superdari of the owner’s truck be conditioned on detaching its milk tanker because it might again be used unlawfully?

Court holding

What the Court decided

The tanker could lawfully transport milk and was not essential equipment for manufacturing adulterated milk. Detachment could damage the truck or render it unusable. On this record the owner was entitled to interim custody for lawful use, subject to the criminal proceedings and preservation of the vehicle.

Final outcome

Final outcome

Petition converted into an appeal and allowed. The High Court order was set aside. Temporary custody was allowed in accordance with law, subject to final criminal determination and no alteration materially affecting condition or value.

Practical effect

What the decision means in practice

Petition converted into an appeal and allowed. The High Court order was set aside. Temporary custody was allowed in accordance with law, subject to final criminal determination and no alteration materially affecting condition or value.

This summary states the immediate effect recorded in the decision. The original judgment and the facts of the particular case remain controlling.

Key legal principles

Key legal principles

• Superdari is an interim arrangement to preserve property pending the criminal case.
• The tanker could carry pure or adulterated milk and was not exclusively devoted to unlawful use.
• Detachment could damage the vehicle or destroy its transport utility.
• The owner’s Article 24 rights for lawful use mattered alongside preservation of the case property.
• The FCC did not acquit the accused or finally determine confiscation; custody remained subject to the criminal case and preservation conditions.