Zain-ul-Abideen alias Zain vs State Ss — 2026 PCrLJ 728 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Zain-ul-Abideen alias Zain VS State 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.

Zain-ul-Abideen alias Zain vs State Ss — 2026 PCrLJ 728 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PCRLJ