Section 32 Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997

Section 32 : Articles connected with narcotics

2023 YLR 2264 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

State VS FAROOQ KHAN

Ss. 74, 32, 33(2), 2nd proviso & 48—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 516-A—Superdari (custody) of seized vehicle used in the trafficking of contraband— Scope— Anti-Narcotics Force (ANF) recovered contraband lying beneath the driving seat of the car/ vehicle being driven by the accused—Respondent, who was not an accused, filed an application under S. 516-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 for release of vehicle-in-question on superdari, which was allowed—ANF preferred appeal against the said order—Validity—Record revealed that the respondent had not been indicted in the present case—Section 74 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (‘the Act 1997’) related to custody before conclusion of the case, the connotation whereof was in negative as the same stated that the vehicle involved in the crime “shall not be given in custody” of an accused or any associate or relative or any private individual till conclusion of the case except as provided in the 2nd proviso of clause (2) of S. 33 of the Act 1997, whereas S. 32(2) of the Act, 1997 empowered the Trial Court to confiscate vehicle on conclusion of the trial provided no vehicle or conveyance would be confiscated unless it was proved that owner thereof knew that the offence was being or was to be committed—Respondent was the recorded owner of the vehicle-in-question, which he had leased on loan from a Bank—According to the affidavits sworn by him, he had rented out vehicle-in-question to the accused, and he was absolutely unaware of the narcotics having been transported by the accused in vehicle-in-question—As such he was not at fault, thus his case came within the preview of Ss. 32 & 33 of the Act 1997—No illegality or infirmity was found in the impugned order of release of the vehicle on superdari to the respondent—Appeal was dismissed in limine, in circumstances.

2023 YLR 1200 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

ABDUL GHAFFAR VS State

32—Articles connected with narcotics—Scope—Section 32 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, clearly manifests that whenever an offence has been committed under the Act, the intoxicant, utensils, etc. in respect or by means of which the offence has been committed shall be liable to confiscation along with receptacles or packages and vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used to carry the same—Article or vehicle used to prepare or transport narcotics has to be confiscated.

2023 YLR 1200 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

ABDUL GHAFFAR VS State

32—Balochistan Motor Vehicles Ordinance (XIX of 1965), S. 2(24)—Articles connected with narcotics—Release of vehicle to owner—Scope—Mandatory requirement of law is that the person claiming release, must be the recorded owner of the vehicle, whereas, subsection (24) of S. 2 of the Balochistan Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965, also defines the word ‘owner’ as a person in whose name the vehicle is registered.

2023 PCrLJ 164 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

RAZA MUHAMMAD VS State

Ss. 32 & 33—Articles connected with narcotics—Procedure for confiscation—Scope—Appellant assailed order passed by Trial Court only to the extent of confiscation of vehicle from which heroin was recovered—Accused was acquitted of the charge, on an application under S. 265-K, Cr.P.C., however, the vehicle along with contraband was ordered to be confiscated in favour of the State—Appellant had not claimed ownership of the vehicle in question during the course of investigation or trial—Appeal was presented before the Court with a considerable delay of four months, that too, without any plausible explanation, whereas, on the other hand the appellant was claiming that the vehicle in question was the only source of his income and his entire family depended upon the same—Document through which the appellant was trying to prove his ownership was a purchase slip—Vehicle was registered in the name of another person—Appellant was not entitled to claim ownership rights over the vehicle in question—Appeal was dismissed.

2023 PCrLJ 164 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

RAZA MUHAMMAD VS State

32—Articles connected with narcotics—Scope—Whenever an offence has been committed under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, the intoxicant, utensils, etc., in respect or by means of which the offence has been committed shall be liable to confiscation along with receptacles or packages and vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used to carry the same.

2023 YLR 63 ISLAMABAD

ANF VS ADNAN RAFIQUE

32—Articles connected with narcotics—Scope—Prosecution assailed order passed by Trial Court whereby it had ordered return of the vehicle to the claimant/respondent—Held; it was not the case of the prosecution that the respondent had any nexus with the commission of the alleged offence—Respondent was also not accused in the subject case—Respondent was registered owner of the vehicle with no rival claimant—Knowledge or connivance of the respondent had remained unsubstantiated during the trial, therefore, under the principle, the vehicle was not liable to confiscation—Impugned order did not require interference—Appeal was dismissed.

2022 PCrLJ 10 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

REHMAT GUL VS State

Ss. 32 & 27—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 516-A—Police Rules, 1934, Rr. 22.16 & 22.18—Articles connected with narcotics—Disposal of seized articles—Notice to accused prior to the destruction of narcotics—Scope—Allegedly, at the time of destruction of the case property, no notice was given to the accused, hence, the accused had been prejudiced in his defence—Such objection was not tenable because on the one hand, that objection had neither been raised by the defence at the time of cross-examination of Judicial Magistrate who destroyed the case property or in the cross-examination of Police Official, who produced the case property before Judicial Magistrate for destruction—On the other hand, notice to accused at the time of destruction of the case property, particularly, narcotics was not the requirement of S. 33(4) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused through cogent and confidence inspiring evidence— Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.

2022 PCrLJN 55 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

State VS MUHAMMAD HAFEEZ

32— Articles connected with narcotics—Scope—Prosecution assailed the release of vehicle which was used in transportation of narcotics to brother of convict—Validity—Since the respondent (brother) had shown to the Trial Court that he was the legal owner of the vehicle, its possession was rightly handed over to him after due verification—Respondent was although real brother of the convict but he had no knowledge of the commission of offence—Appeal was dismissed.

2022 PCrLJN 109 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

RAHAMUDDIN BAREECH VS State

Ss. 48, 32 & 74—Vehicle involved in transporting narcotic substance—Return of such vehicle —Scope—Vehicle was taken into custody by the local police being involved in transportation of narcotics—Application for return of said vehicle filed by acquitted accused was dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that since appeal had been filed by the convicted accused, which was still pending, therefore, at such stage said application could not be allowed—Validity—Record showed that while passing order for disposal of case property, the Trial Court had ordered that the truck recovered from acquitted accused, driver and cleaners, be restored to them in accordance with law after expiry of appeal period—Applicants driver and cleaner of the vehicle were acquitted while three other accused were convicted and sentenced—Convicted persons preferred appeals against their conviction and sentences, however, driver and cleaners were acquitted, meaning thereby that neither they nor the said vehicle was in any manner involved in drug trafficking, and since no appeal was filed by the state against the acquittal of driver and cleaner therefore their acquittal on the expiry of period of limitation had attained finality and, thus, they along with the said vehicle were exonerated from the said crime—Fate of the appeals filed by the convicted accused, whether the same were allowed or dismissed, would not affect the case of the acquitted accused in any manner nor the order for disposal of the vehicle was under challenge before any court—No occasion existed for the Trial Court to turn down the application for returning the vehicle, in circumstances.

2021 PCrLJ 438 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

GHULAM ALI VS State

Ss. 32 & 33—Articles connected with narcotics—Procedure for confiscation—Scope—Appellant assailed the judgment passed by Trial Court to the extent of confiscation of vehicle used in transportation of narcotics—Sections 32 & 33 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, empowered the Trial Court to order confiscation of vehicle used in trafficking of narcotic—Vehicle could not be confiscated unless it was proved that owner was aware that his vehicle was being used in the crime and in that respect burden was placed on the prosecution—Record of the case was silent as to whether any query or probe was made during investigation or during trial or any substantial proof was brought on record by the prosecution about involvement of the owner of the vehicle or his knowledge of transportation of narcotics—Appeal was allowed, impugned judgment to the extent of confiscation of vehicle was set aside and the case was remanded to the Trial Court for release of vehicle subject to verification of ownership from Registration Authority.

2021 MLD 80 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

JANAN KHAN VS State

32—Articles connected with narcotics—Non-appearance of owner of vehicle before Special Court—Effect—Appellant assailed order passed by Judge Special Court (CNS) whereby vehicle carrying narcotic was confiscated in favour of the State—Appellant pleaded that he was unaware about pendency of the case, therefore, he had not appeared before the Trial Court but vehicle was kept in detention during the trial for a period of one year—Impugned judgment revealed that the narcotic was recovered from the secret cavities of the vehicle—Documents produced by appellant were mere photocopies which could not be considered at appellate stage, when neither any judicial enquiry was conducted nor the same were proved through evidence—Appellant was advised to avail the remedies available to him under the provisions of relevant law before the Trial Court—Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

2021 YLR 429 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

ANTI-NARCOTICS FORCE, RAWALPINDI VS ALI SHAH

32—Article (Vehicle) connected with transporting narcotics—Scope—Prosecution assailed order passed by Judge Special Court (CNS) whereby its application under S.32 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, was dismissed and the vehicle was handed over to its owner/respondent—Section 32 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, clearly laid down that whenever an offence was committed which was punishable under the Act, the narcotic drugs, psychotropic substance or controlled substances, material, apparatus and utensils in respect of which or by means of which, such offence was committed shall be liable to confiscation, however, the confiscation could not be made unless and until it was proved that the owner thereof knew that the offence was being or was to be committed and the vehicle would be used for carrying such drugs and substances—Investigating Officer had not collected any evidence during investigation of the case that the respondent was in knowledge of the fact that the vehicle was to be used by the accused for carrying and transporting of the narcotic substances—Respondent could not be deprived of the custody of the vehicle in the absence of such evidence and the vehicle could not be ordered to be confiscated—Order passed by Judge Special Court (CNS) was in consonance with law and facts—Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

2020 PLD 299 SUPREME-COURT

AMJAD ALI KHAN VS State

32(2)—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 516-A—Motor Vehicles Ordinance (XIX of 1965), S. 2(24)—Superdari of vehicle used in transportation of narcotic—Scope—Ownership of vehicle – Proof – Vehicle on ‘open transfer letter’ – Applicant must be the owner of the vehicle prior to the commission of the offence—Open transfer letter was not a valid document of title and it did not transfer ownership of a vehicle in terms of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965—Legal title of a vehicle confiscated under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 stood frozen till the conclusion of the trial and as a result the owner stood cautioned not to deal or transact with the title of the vehicle till the conclusion of the trial.

2020 PLD 299 SUPREME-COURT

AMJAD ALI KHAN VS State

32(2)—Vehicle used in transportation of narcotics—Confiscation of such vehicle—Scope—Under S.32(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 vehicles, vessels and other conveyances were liable to confiscation if they were used in carrying both narcotics or narcotics along with lawful drugs and substances—Vehicles, vessels and other conveyances were liable to confiscation irrespective whether they were used in carrying narcotics alone or joint category of narcotics and lawful drugs and substance.

2020 PLD 299 SUPREME-COURT

AMJAD ALI KHAN VS State

Ss. 32(2) & 74, proviso—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.516-A—Superdari/custody of vehicle used in transportation of narcotic—Scope—Applicant could seek release of a vehicle on superdari, which had been seized under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 and was a case property in a criminal case; if the applicant could show that he was the lawful owner of the vehicle; and that he was neither the accused nor an associate or a relative of the accused or an individual having any nexus with the accused.

2020 YLR 731 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

DIRECTOR GENERAL, PAKISTAN COAST GUARD HEAD QUARTER, KARACHI VS SIKANDAR

32—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.516-A—Superdari of vehicle—Articles connected with narcotics—Knowledge of the owner of vehicle—Scope—Prosecution assailed order of Trial Court whereby it had accepted the application of respondent for release of vehicle—Validity—Respondent had produced legal documents of the vehicle, which were verified by the Trial Court from Excise and Taxation Department—Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 did not put an embargo on release of vehicle on superdari to the bona fide owner—Prosecution had to establish the knowledge of the owner of vehicle in respect of its usage for smuggling of contraband material—Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 did not prohibit the release of vehicle used in trafficking of narcotics, when the owner had no nexus with the commission of the crime or the accused and he was unaware that the vehicle was being used for the crime—Revision petition was dismissed.

2020 PCrLJ 284 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

HAMEED ULLAH QURESHI VS State

Ss. 48, 32 & 74—Vehicle involved in transporting narcotic substances—Superdari of such vehicle—Scope—Vehicle was taken into custody by the local police being involved in transportation of narcotics—Application for supardari was refused by the Trial Court—Validity—Appellant had sought superdari of the vehicle on the ground of being owner of the vehicle—Appellant was the owner and there was no dispute about that—Section 74 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 deprived the accused, his associate or relative or any private individual from pre-trial custody of the vehicle—Section 74 of the Act, even if strictly construed, would place such person outside the ambit of forbidding clauses of the section—If an innocent owner of vehicle unaware of the crime was entitled to its return at the conclusion of trial, had a corollary, in the absence of express statutory provisions, he would also have the right to obtain and retain its temporary custody pending trial—Ownership documents had been produced by the appellant so much so the names of actual culprits had also been disclosed by the appellant—After lapse of almost six months, challan had not been put in court—Proviso to S. 74 did not forbid the release of vehicle involved in trafficking of narcotics to his owner, who was not connected in any manner with the commission of the crime or the accused and was unaware that his vehicle was being used for the crime—No rival claimant of the vehicle had come forward—Retention of vehicle in police custody for an indefinite period would not serve any useful purpose—Appellant was entitled to the temporary custody of the vehicle, in circumstances—Appeal was allowed by setting aside the impugned order— Vehicle was directed to be released on superdari.

2020 PCrLJ 524 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

ALLAH RAKHA VS State

Ss. 32 & 27—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 516-A—Police Rules, 1934, Rr. 22.16 & 22.18—Articles connected with narcotics—Disposal of seized articles—Custody of property case—Scope—Specific procedure has been prescribed for disposal/destruction of case property which, if consists of narcotic drug, psychotropic substance or controlled substance constituting an offence under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 is liable to be confiscated and only the court is authorized for destruction of such case property—Police officer of the rank of Sub-Inspector or any other police officer duly authorized in that behalf by the Government can seize a property which has been used in the commission of an offence, but he has no power to dispose of the same—Police officer is obligated to deposit the same in court or with the officer in charge of a police station as described in the Police Rules, 1934—Rule 22.16 of Police Rules, 1934 provides that weapons, articles and property in connection with criminal cases recovered during the course of searches made in police investigation are to be entered in the store-room Register—Rule 22.18 of Police Rules, 1934 instructs that the officer in charge of the police station shall make suitable arrangements for its safe custody.

2019 PCrLJ 1341 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

BADSHAH ZADA VS State

Ss. 32 & 74—Trafficking of narcotic drugs—Articles connected with narcotics—Scope—Confiscation of vehicle—Appellant assailed order of Trial Court whereby it refused to release the vehicle involved in the narcotics case—Validity—Vehicle in question could not be termed as “case property” as narcotic (charas) was not recovered from the secret compartments of the vehicle in question—Appellant was neither an accused nor any material was available with the prosecution that his vehicle was used in the offence with his active knowledge—Even otherwise there was no other claimant of the vehicle in question—Appeal was allowed and Trial Court was directed to issue process for handing over the vehicle in question to its legitimate and registered owner after due verification.

2019 PCrLJ 1341 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

BADSHAH ZADA VS State

32—Articles connected with narcotics—Scope—Confiscation of vehicle—Vehicle can be seized under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 only in three situations, i.e. firstly, where it is carrying unlawful narcotics along with some lawful narcotics, secondly, where it is a part of the assets derived from narcotic offences and thirdly, where narcotics have been recovered from its secret chambers, cavities or compartments, etc.

2019 PCrLJ 1341 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

BADSHAH ZADA VS State

32—Articles connected with narcotics—Confiscation of vehicle—Release of vehicle—Burden of proof—Scope—Section 32 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 deals with the final confiscation or release of the vehicle to the owner, after conclusion of the trial, if he has proved that he has no knowledge about the offence, which has been committed in the vehicle—Not only that an innocent owner of the vehicle is entitled to the return of the vehicle but the burden has been placed on the prosecution to establish that the owner has the knowledge of his vehicle being used in the crime—Knowledge is to be proved by leading evidence and the Trial Court can form such opinion after having taken into consideration the facts of the case.

2019 MLD 1445 ISLAMABAD

Syed KARAM HUSSAIN SHAH VS State

Ss. 9(c) & 32—Possessing and trafficking narcotics—Confiscation of vehicle—Scope—Contraband concealed in secret cavity of vehicle—Said vehicle was to be confiscated in terms of S.32 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, in favour of State.

2019 YLR 1043 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

AQEEL MAROOF VS State

497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 9(b), 9(c) & 32—Possession of narcotic drug—Confiscation of articles connected with narcotics—Bail, grant of—Borderline case—Further inquiry—Non-availability of Chemical Examination Report—Effect—Accused was charged for possession of 1120 grams of charas—Fifty grams of charas was sent for chemical examination but report had not been brought on record—Quantity of charas marginally exceeded the limit between 900 grams to 1500 grams—Case being a borderline case between cls. (b) & (c) of S. 9, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, therefore, further inquiry was required to determine the guilt of accused—Challan had been submitted but independent evidence to connect the accused with the guilt had not been collected—Accused was ordered to be enlarged on bail.

2017 PTD 1858 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

INSPECTOR GENERAL, FRONTIER CORPS VS ZAIN ALI

196—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 32—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199—Reference to High Court—Release of vehicle—Supervisory jurisdiction of High Court—Dispute was with regard to possession of vehicle in question which was allegedly used in transporting huge quantity of narcotic substances—Customs authorities confiscated vehicle under the provisions of Customs Act, 1969 but Appellate Tribunal set aside the order—Plea raised by criminal investigating agency was that a heavy quantity of narcotics was recovered from the vehicle and custody of the same could not be decided under Customs Act, 1969—Validity—In view of the confined/limited scope of S. 196 of Customs Act, 1969, High Court declined to set aside the order passed in respect of vehicle in question, however, High Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution, set aside the order passed by Trial Court remanded the matter for passing appropriate order in respect of vehicle, in view of the provisions of S. 32 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Reference was disposed of accordingly.

2016 YLR 1439 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

FAZAL-UR-REHMAN VS State

Ss. 9, 32 & 33—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.516-A & 517—Confiscation of vehicle used in smuggling of narcotics—Application for superdari of vehicle—Trial Court after holding a full dressed trial, convicted and sentenced accused; and confiscated bus allegedly used in smuggling of narcotics—Applicant/appellant, who filed application for superdari of bus in question, claimed that he was owner of the bus; and that there was no rival claimant for the same—Applicant, contended that he was unaware regarding use of the bus in commission of the offence and alleged that the Trial Court had committed serous illegality by not complying with the provisions of Ss.32 & 33 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Validity—Applicant, made no effort to associate himself with the trial proceedings, so as to prove his title of the bus; which was registered not in the name of the applicant, but in the name of another person—Applicant derived his title from said other person on the basis of affidavit, which was not produced by the applicant during trial of the case—Applicant claimed that he had sold the bus to accused persons on instalments—Applicant was only brandishing an affidavit in his name by registered owner of the bus; and onward sale of the bus through alleged Iqrarnama—Manner through which applicant had proceeded all along spoke volumes of his conduct—Trial Court, had rightly dismissed application of the applicant for superdari, and rightly denied his claim in respect of bus, which was confiscated to the State.

2016 YLR 1326 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

IMRAN ALI VS State

Ss. 32, 33, 74 & 48—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.517—Articles connected with narcotics—Superdari—Confiscation of vehicle used for trafficking narcotics—Scope—Material collected by Investigating Officer did not show slightest kind of suspicion brought on record that accused was in knowledge that vehicle was used for commission of alleged offence and documents annexed with the petition showed that accused was owner of said vehicle and there was no rival claimant of vehicle in question—Vehicle in question was to be returned to applicant on ‘superdari’—Appeal was allowed, accordingly.

2016 YLR 1000 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

ABDUL KHALIQ VS State

Ss. 8, 32 & 33—Trafficking of narcotic drugs—Confiscation of vehicle—Release of vehicle—Locus standi—Appellant claimed to be owner of vehicle in question which was used in commission of offence and Trial Court ordered for its confiscation—Validity—Appellant was stranger to proceedings before Trial Court as the vehicle was not registered in his name and he was merely brandishing some bargain receipt in his hand on the basis of which he was lying claim over the vehicle—Plea of want of knowledge about trial proceedings in respect of vehicle in question was only available to registered owner of vehicle who did not surfaced till then—Appellant did not challenge confiscation order before High Court till the acquittal of accused and thereafter thought it fit to express his grievance against confiscation order by filing his time-barred appeal—High Court declined to interfere in confiscation order passed by Trial Court—Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

2016 YLR 1105 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

ALLAH BAKHSH VS State

Ss. 48, 32 & 74—-Vehicle involved in transferring narcotic substances—Superdari of vehicle—Car allegedly containing narcotic substance of heavy quantity was apprehended by the Police—Application for supardari was dismissed—Applicant being the sole owner of car had a right of supardari for said car especially when after passage of 5-6 months there had been no progress in the case—Retention of car for an indefinite period would only deteriorate or damage the car—Absolute bar for temporarily returning the vehicle on supardari during the pendency of trial could not be justified—Prima facie it was established that applicant had no knowledge about existence of narcotic substances in his car—Court which can grant a final relief can also grant an interim relief—Since there was no material evidence which showed that the applicant knew about the narcotic substance, therefore, applicant was entitled for the supardari of his car on presenting of a surety bond and with an undertaking that the vehicle shall be produced in court as and when ordered—Appeal was allowed accordingly.

2016 PCrLJ 56 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

HAROON RASHEED VS State

Ss. 32 & 33—Confiscation of articles connected with narcotics—Section 32 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, cast a duty upon the court that before passing an order for confiscation of a vehicle, to determine the fact that as to whether the owner of such vehicle was aware of the fact that offence was being, or was to be committed by way of such vehicle—Section 33 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, made it obligatory for the court to provide an opportunity to the person, who claimed the right in the said vehicle—Impugned judgment of the Trial Court, was clearly evident of the fact that none of these mandatory provisions were adhered by the Trial Court, while passing the order of confiscation of the vehicle in question—Not a slightest piece of evidence, was found establishing the factum of knowledge of accused (owner of vehicle) with regard to commission of offence—Impugned judgment of the Trial Court to the extent of owner of vehicle could not sustain—Allowing appeal judgment was set aside to the extent of confiscation of vehicle in question.

2014 PCrLJ 989 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

AMEER KHAN VS State

516-A—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c), 32 & 33—Application for superdari, grant of—Transporting the narcotics—Contention of the applicant was that accused was his driver and he had no knowledge that his car was being used for transportation of narcotics—Application for superdari was dismissed by the Trial Court and accused was convicted and vehicle was confiscated—Trial Court was bound to look for the mens rea on the part of applicant or any contribution made by him—Record was silent as to whether any query or probe was made by raiding party or Investigation Officer to trace out that applicant had any knowledge of transporting the narcotics—Provisions of Ss. 32 & 33 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 was beneficial enactment to safeguard the right of innocent owner—To penalize a person in absence of mens rea would be unjust and confiscation of the vehicle would be harsh—Impugned judgment in respect of confiscation of car (only) was set aside and case was remanded to the Trial Court with the direction to dispose of the application after proper appreciation of evidence.

2014 PCrLJ 989 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

AMEER KHAN VS State

Ss. 32 & 33—Articles connected with narcotics, confiscation of—Procedure— Scope— Whenever an offence had been committed under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, the intoxicant, utensils etc in respect or by means of which the offence had been committed should be liable to confiscation along with receptacles or packages and vehicle, vessel or other conveyance used to carry the same.

2014 MLD 587 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

NASEEB RAHMAN VS State

516-A—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c), 32 & 74—Possessing and trafficking of narcotics—Superdari of vehicle—Vehicle in question had been seized in narcotic case from accused against whom the trial was in progress—Claimant of the vehicle was not accused in the narcotic case—Vehicle being non-customs paid had been registered in the name of the claimant and no other person had come forward to claim ownership or possession of vehicle in question—Nothing was on the file to indicate that the vehicle was used in the commission of the crime with the knowledge of the claimant—No doubt S.74 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 prohibited the grant of custody of the vehicle used in the export, import or transportation of narcotic substance to accused, or any of his associates, or relatives, or any private individual, till the conclusion of the same, but the application of that provision of law, could not be extended to cover an owner, who had no hand or involvement in the crime, as it could not be construed independently of the provisions contained in S.32 of said Act which protected the right of the owner, who had no conscious hand in the commission of the crime—Retention of vehicle in Police custody for an indefinite period, would serve no useful purpose—Judicial discretion could also be exercised for release of the vehicle on ‘Superdari’ in view of the principle that if a court could grant final relief, it also possessed inherent jurisdiction to grant temporary relief pending proceedings before it, subject to fulfilling condition by the claimant under the law for getting relief finally from the court—Custody of vehicle in question along with its documents, was ordered to be handed over to the claimant on furnishing bond/security, in circumstances.

2014 PCrLJ 1344 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

IBRAR HUSSAIN VS State

Ss. 9(c), 32(2) & 48—Possessing and trafficking narcotics—Confiscation of vehicle—Car in question taken into custody on the allegation that same was being used by appellant/accused in the commission of crime, was confiscated in favour of State and its auction was also ordered—Said car was given to appellant in superdari by Special Court, but ignoring such aspect of the matter; and also violating the process of issuance of notice to the appellant/owner and to enquire into the matter, confiscation of the car was ordered by the Special Court—Impugned judgment to the extent of confiscation of car was nullity in the eye of law, and was not sustainable—To such extent impugned order was set aside, and matter was remanded to the Special Court with the direction, first to issue notice to the owner of car, and then to conduct a discrete inquiry, while maintaining superdari with the appellant; and thereafter pass an order with regard to disposal of car.

2014 PCrLJ 561 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

AZIZ ULLAH KHAN VS State

Ss. 9 & 32— Possessing and trafficking narcotics— Articles connected with narcotics—Taking of samples—Where wrappers, slabs, cakes, packets, boxes, containers, etc. were recovered, it was mandatory to take separate sample from every separate packet, wrapper, slab, box, container and cake to make it a ‘Representative Sample’ of narcotic substance recovered.

2013 YLR 2228 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

ZEWAR KHAN VS ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL, DARUL QAZA

516-A—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(b), 32 & 74—Application for superdari, grant of—Contention of the applicant was that he was owner of the vehicle—Application for superdari was dismissed by the Trial Court—Applicant was not accused who claimed ownership of the vehicle on the basis of registration book and transfer letter and there was no other claimant of the vehicle—Notice was on record that vehicle had been used in the commission of offence with the knowledge of the applicant—Section 32 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, empowered the Trial Court for confiscation of the vehicle but the same should not be confiscated unless the owner was aware that his vehicle was used in the crime—Section 74 of the Act did not prohibit the release of the vehicle to its owner who was not connected with the commission of crime or was accused—Nothing was on record that applicant was aware that his vehicle was used for the transportation of Charas—Application was allowed and vehicle was given on superdari to the applicant.

2013 YLR 1626 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

AMIN NAWAZ BLOUCH VS State

516-A—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss. 32 & 74—Superdari of vehicle—Custody of vehicle used in transportation of narcotic—Scope—Narcotics transported without knowledge of owner of vehicle—Effect—Bus in question had been taken into possession by the police after charas was recovered from it, which was found in a box underneath the driver’s seat; Bus was being driven by an employee of the appellant—Appellant moved application before Trial Court for superdari of bus , but same was dismissed—Appellant contended that he had purchased the bus on lease from a bank on finance facility; that he had paid 55 lease instalments out of a total of 60; that the bus was being used for public transport and not for carriage of narcotics as recovery had not been made from any secret cavity but from a box underneath the driver’s seat; that driver of bus was exclusively responsible for the illegal act; that he (owner) was neither present in the bus nor could be tagged with the alleged recovery, and that bus was parked in the police station, where it was deteriorating day by day—Validity—Appellant had paid major portion of the instalments to the Bank—Record did not show that vehicle was used in commission of the crime with the knowledge of the appellant—Although section 74 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, prohibited grant of custody of vehicle used in export, import or transportation of narcotic substance to the accused or any of his associates or relatives or any private individual, till the conclusion of the case but said section could not be extended to cover an owner of vehicle who had no hand or involvement in the crime, as S.32 of the same Act, protected the rights of an owner who had no conscious hand in the commission of the crime—Retention of vehicle in police custody for an indefinite period would serve no useful purpose—Perusal of documents on record showed that appellant was owner of vehicle at least in the absence of any rival claimant—Appeal was allowed, order of Trial Court was set-aside and bus was handed over to the appellant with a direction to ensure production of bus as and when required by the Trial Court.

2013 YLR 140 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

SAFI ULLAH JAN VS State

32(2)—Confiscation of vehicle—-Appreciation of evidence—Belated claim of ownership—Owner of vehicle claiming ownership of same at appellate stage—Effect—Police recovered 99 kilograms of charas pukhta, 48 kilograms of charas garda and 38.2 kilograms of opium from secret cavities of the truck in question—Trial Court ordered confiscation of the truck—Validity—-Owner of truck never bothered to lay his claim of ownership before the Trial Court and instead waited for the fate of the case—Owner had approached the High Court at appellate stage of case claiming ownership to save himself from the clutches of the law being the alleged owner of the truck from which large quantities of charas and opium were recovered—Trial Court had rightly passed order for confiscation of the truck by observing all legal formalities contained in S.32(2), Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

2012 MLD 1043 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

SALIH MUHAMMAD VS NIAZ MUHAMMAD

517—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.48/ 32/33/74—Order for disposal of property regarding which offence committed—Articles connected with narcotics, procedure for making confiscation, application of other laws—Vehicle (truck) which had been used in the commission of the offence was confiscated to the State during trial because the person in whose name it was registered did not turn up despite issuance of notices to him—Contentions of alleged owner (appellant) were that he was the legal, genuine and last bona fide purchaser of the vehicle in question; that there was no other rival claimant of the vehicle, and that prior to confiscation, no notice had been issued to him—Validity—Alleged owner was never a party before the Trial Court and if he was the genuine owner of the vehicle in question he would have applied before the Trial Court for the release of the vehicle, because being an owner it was presumed that after the custody by the Anti-Narcotics Force staff , the owner would have knowledge of the same—Alleged owner could not be given licence of the ownership of the vehicle on the basis of a photocopy of a document/affidavit obtained on a stamp paper—Authenticity of document produced could not be made—In absence of any solid, genuine and convincing material, appeal was dismissed.

2011 YLR 341 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

MUHAMMAD ALAMGIR VS State

Ss. 9(c), 32 & 33—Smuggling of narcotics—Confiscation of Bus allegedly used in offence—Vehicle used to transport the contrabands was liable to confiscation to the State under S.32 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, but such power of confiscation was subject to proviso provided in subsection (2) of S.32 of the Ordinance—Under said Proviso no vehicle could be confiscated unless it was proved that the owner thereof knew that the offence was being or was to be committed—In the present case, the Trial Court had confiscated the Bus carrying the contrabands, without any proof of said condition precedent—No evidence was produced by the prosecution to prove, firstly as to who was the owner; and secondly, that the said owner knew that the offence was being or was to be committed—Order of confiscating the Bus, without considering the claim of ownership of appellant in respect thereof, in circumstances was illegal having violated provisions of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Order confiscating Bus was set aside and case was remanded to the Trial Court to inquire the claim of ownership made by the appellant by providing appellant the opportunity to produce evidence regarding his ownership of said Bus.

2011 PCrLJ 423 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Syed ZAMAN VS MUHAMMAD JAVED

Ss. 9, 32 & 74—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.561-A—Possession of narcotics—Bar contained in S. 74, Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Scope—Petition for return of vehicle allegedly used in the offence—Counsel for the petitioner had contended that on the principle of analogy of S.32 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 the vehicle in question should have been returned by the court to him; that the petitioner had no knowledge of the fact that the driver of the vehicle was using the same for trafficking of narcotics; and that the petitioner earned his livelihood from the said vehicle—Petitioner had provided documents pertaining to the vehicle in question to the Police—Petitioner had not been arrayed as an accused, which would indicate that the Investigating Agency had also admitted his claim—Bar contained in Proviso to S.74 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 was not absolute and vehicle involved could be given in cases, where it could be, prima facie, held that the person claiming to be the owner had no knowledge that the vehicle was being used for narcotics—Allowing petition, High Court directed that the vehicle would be returned to the petitioner on furnishing bond.

2011 PCrLJ 342 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

KASHIF NADEEM VS AIMAL KHAN

Ss. 517 & 561-A—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c), 32 & 33—Possession of narcotics—Confiscation of vehicle allegedly used in offence—Petition for quashing of confiscation order and return of vehicle—Treating petition as appeal—Accused were acquitted from the charges levelled against them, while vehicle allegedly used in the commission of offence was ordered by the Trial Court to be kept intact till expiry of appeal/revision period; and thereafter dispose of the same in accordance with law—Appellant/real owner filed application for custody of vehicle in question, but his application having been dismissed by the Trial Court said owner of vehicle filed petition under S. 561-A, Cr. P. C. for setting aside order of the Trial Court—Said petition was treated as appeal and was disposed of as such—Owner of vehicle in question, was not put on notice by the Trial Court as to why vehicle could not be confiscated—Prosecution during investigation also did not bother to trace out owner of said vehicle through its registration number—Owner of vehicle had lodged F.I.R. under S.381-A, P.P.C. at Police Station with regard to theft of vehicle—Provision of S.32 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, permitted confiscation of vehicle only when it was proved that its owner had knowledge that the offence was being or was to be committed—In the present case, Trial Court, without any proper inquiry dismissed application of the owner, without complying with Ss.32 & 33 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Impugned order was set aside and case was remanded to the Trial Court to decide application of appellant/owner of vehicle in accordance with law.

2011 MLD 679 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

MUHAMMAD WASEEM VS State

Ss. 9(c), 32 & 74—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.516-A, 523-A & 561-A—Possession and trafficking narcotics—Application for superdari of vehicle allegedly used for the offence by the owner had been dismissed—Owner filed application for quashing of order of dismissal of application—Applicant who was bona fide purchaser of the vehicle for consideration had handed over the vehicle to driver for earning livelihood and was hired by the accused—Section 74 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, related to release of vehicle temporarily on “superdari” during pendency of trial—Vehicle involved in the transportation of narcotics would not be released during trial, however, absolute bar could not be created for release of vehicle, if as per S.32 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, it was prima facie established that owner of vehicle had no knowledge that narcotics had been transported in his vehicle—Judicial discretion could also be exercised for release of vehicle on “superdari”; in view of the principle that, if’ a court could grant final relief, it also possessed inherent jurisdiction to grant temporary relief, pending proceedings before it subject to prima facie fulfilling the condition by the applicant under the law for getting relief finally from the court—Tentative assessment of record would show that applicant was prima facie a genuine owner of vehicle; and if it was handed over to him on superdari; then keeping same in seizure condition for indefinite period waiting conclusion of trial against furnishing of heavy surety bonds, but subject to production of original documents of ownership, the same would be in the interest of justice–Anti-Narcotic Force was directed to hand over the vehicle in question to the applicant on superdari, till decision of the case, subject to production of documents of his title before Investigating Officer, who would verify the ownership and submit his report to the Trial Court.

2010 PCrLJ 1145 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

KHAYAL MUHAMMAD VS State

Ss. 9(c), 32(2), proviso & S.33—Possessing narcotics—Confiscation of vehicle—Appellant/owner of the vehicle in question was not put on notice as to why the vehicle be not confiscated—Proviso to S.32(2) of Contra; of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 had laid down prerequisite conditions that no vehicle, vessel or other conveyance would be liable to confiscation, unless it was proved that the owner thereof knew that the offence was being or was to be committed; in fact knowledge was a point of fact and was to be adjudicated in accordance with law in a normal procedure of dispensation of justice by putting the owner on notice and not necessarily the accused—No effort was made to ascertain and determine the question that appellant knew that the offence was being or was to be committed—All those procedural pre-requisite had not been observed by the Trial Court and order had been passed for confiscation of vehicle in question—Requirements of S.32 or 33 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 had not been followed and observed in circumstances—In view of illegality committed by the Trial Court, impugned order was set aside to the extent of confiscation of vehicle, in question and matter was remanded to the Trial Court for proceeding in accordance with law and decision of the case.

2010 YLR 1939 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

YAR MUHAMMAD VS State

Ss. 32, 33 & 48—Confiscation of vehicle—Trial Court confiscated the passenger bus allegedly carrying the contraband, without any proof of the condition precedent stated in S.32 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—No evidence was produced by the prosecution to prove firstly as to who was the owner of the vehicle; and that the owner knew that the offence was being or was to be committed—Order of confiscating the passenger bus, without any evidence to prove the conscious knowledge of the owner was illegal and without lawful authority—Impugned order was set aside and case was remanded to Judge Special Court to inquire into the claim of ownership made by appellants or any other person; and thereafter hand over the confiscated bus to its legal owner.

2009 MLD 131 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

BAKHTIAR VS State

Ss. 9(c), 32, 33 & 48—Appreciation of evidence—Confiscation of vehicle—Owner of vehicle allegedly used in occurrence had impugned order of the Trial Court in appeal to the extent of confiscation of vehicle—Before confiscation of the vehicle, the issuance of notice to the appellant/owner as envisaged under the provision of S.33, Proviso of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 was mandatory—Subsection (2) of S.32 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 also permitted the confiscation of the vehicle only when it was proved that the owner had the knowledge that offence was being committed and such point had to be determined in accordance with law after issuing of a notice to the owner of the vehicle and affording a chance of hearing to him—No notice as envisaged under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, having been given to the appellant/owner of the vehicle, order of confiscation of vehicle was liable to be struck down on that sole ground—Impugned order of the Trial Court to the extent of confiscation of vehicle in question, was set aside and case was remanded to the Trial Court with the direction to proceed with the same strictly in accordance with law.

2009 PLD 625 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

ADAMJEE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. KARACHI through Sarfraz Ali VS State

Ss. 516-A & 517—Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.381-A—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.22; 32, 33 & 74, Proviso—Temporary custody of vehicle—Car in question which allegedly was used in transportation of narcotics was stolen away by unknown thief—Said car before incident of theft was insured with appellant/Insurance Company—Trial Court dismissed the request for temporary custody of car by Insurance Company on two grounds; firstly that the company could dispose of the car after obtaining it on superdari and secondly the request of the company was barred by proviso to S.74 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Validity—Under proviso to S.74 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, vehicle used in transportation of narcotic drugs would not be given on custody to; (i) accused; (ii) an associate of accused; (iii) a relative of accused; and (iv) any private individual–Said provision of law did not stand in the way of the Insurance Company to make a request for custody of car because the company could not he termed or considered as an accused, or associate of accused, or a relative of accused or even a private individual—Contention of law officer that Insurance Company was a legal person was misconceived because legal person could not be equated with private individual–Insurance Company had paid the claim of registered owner thereof because of its theft—Registered owner of the car or ‘the Insurance Company had no concern with the crime committed by the drug-pusher who was caught red handed while transporting charas in the stolen car—By disallowing superdari of the car to the Insurance Company, the Trial Court had forced the company to stand in the dock along with the culprit without any fault on its part—Only object to discourage superdari of vehicle used in carrying narcotics, was to enable the Trial Court to confiscate such vehicles in terms of S.33 read with S.32 of Control of Narcotic Substances, Act, 1997—While deciding the request of appellant Insurance Company of the car in question, proviso to S.32 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 escaped notice of the Trial Court which had clearly laid down that no such vehicle would be liable to confiscation unless it was proved that owner thereof knew that the offence was likely to be committed through said vehicle—Such being not the position in the present case, impugned order of the Trial Court was set aside and the Trial Court was directed to hand over the vehicle to the appellant Insurance Company on superdari.

2009 YLR 1275 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

AGHA KHAN VS State

S.497—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c) & 32—Bail, refusal of—Bail was sought on the ground that accused was 80 years old patient, though as per National Identity Card accused was aged 57 years—In support of ailment of accused, neither any medical certificate, prescription of medicines had been filed nor it had been disclosed in file—Report of Laboratory test with regard to samples of narcotic substance sent to it, was positive—Delay of five days in sending sample to Chemical Examiner, was to be explained in evidence as tentative assessment was to be made at bail stage and no deeper appreciation was required at that stage—Even otherwise, each and every case was to be decided on its own merits—Presence of accused in a particular vehicle and recovery of huge quantity of charas from secret boxes, prima facie indicated the participation of accused in the offence—Bail application was not filed on behalf of accused on ground of hardship—Bail application, was dismissed, in circumstances.

2009 PCrLJ 254 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

IMTIAZ JAWED VS State

Ss. 516-A & 439–Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.7/9(c), 32, 21, 22 & 74–Custody of car on Superdari—Any vehicle used in carrying a narcotic drug was liable to confiscation, except where its owner did not know that the offence was being or was to be committed, as provided under section 32 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and Ss.21 & 22 thereof had authorized seizure of such vehicle—Proviso to S.74 of the said Act had barred the giving of a vehicle used in transportation of a narcotic drug to the accused or any of his associates or relatives or any private individual, till the conclusion of the case—Presently, material available on record had overwhelmingly showed involvement of accused who was caught red handed in the commission of the offence, while transporting huge quantity of heroin in his car and he could not be said to have no knowledge about the car being used in the transportation of heroin—Order of Trial Court refusing to give custody of the car to the accused was upheld being unexceptionable—Revision petition had no merits and was dismissed accordingly.

2007 PLD 85 SUPREME-COURT

State VS AMJAD ALI

—Ss. 32, 33 & 36—Police Rules 1934, Vol. III, Chapter XXII, Rule 22.16—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)—Case property—Re-examination of confiscated goods—Scope—High Court, in the present case, had ordered for drawing fresh samples

2007 YLR 1908 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

BANARAS KHAN VS State

—Ss. 516-A & 561-A—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c), 32, 33(4) & 74—Superdari of vehicle, petition for—Nothing was on record to show that vehicle in question had been used in the commission of crime with the knowledge of p

2007 YLR 1712 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

JAN AGHA VS State

—S. 516-A—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.32 & 74—Return of vehicle—Petitioner had sought return of vehicle from which 50 kilograms Charas had allegedly been recovered—Petitioner had contended that he had purchased said vehi

2007 MLD 1372 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

State VS FARUUKH NADEEM through Branch Manager

—S. 516-A—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c)/15, 74 & 32—Release of vehicle on Superdari—Validity—Trial Court while ordering interim release of the .vehicle to the respondent company had rightly observed that no evidence w

2006 YLR 1732 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

MUHAMMAD RAFIQ VS State

—Ss. 516-A & 439—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c) & 32—Superdari of car—Criminal revision had been filed against order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, through which application of petitioner for superdari of car was r

2006 PLD 167 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

JAVED HAYAT VS State

—Ss. 74, 48, 2(1), 20, 21, 22, 23, 26 & 32—Superdari of the seized vehicle—Two persons, in the present case, claimed to be joint owners of the seized vehicle and their claim was based in that regard upon a Registration Book which was not controverte

2006 PLD 167 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

JAVED HAYAT VS State

–Ss. 2(1), 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 32 & 74—Superdari of seized vehicle—Analysis of Ss.2(1), 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 32 & 74 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Implied situations in the context of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 which

2006 PCRLJ 123 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

ABDUL RASHEED VS State

—Ss. 516-A & 523—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.32 & 74—Custody of vehicle on Superdari basis—Applicant for Superdari was owner of bus which was taken into custody while carrying narcotic substances—Trial against applicant

2006 MLD 1529 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

State VS RASHID ALI

— S.32—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 439 & 516-A—Custody and disposal of vehicle involved in the case pending trial—Petitioner had impugned order of the Trial Court passed on application under S.516-A, Cr.P.C. by which the car in questi

2004 PLD 251 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

AAMIR KHALIL VS GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN

—-Ss. 516-A & 517—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 32—Supardari of vehicle—Narcotics were not recovered from car in question, but were recovered from other Jeep—Car in question was suspected to have been used as a pilot car,

2004 PLD 485 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

MUHAMMAD AMEEN VS THE STATE

—-S. 517—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.32 & 33—Disposal of the Vehicle connected with the commission of the offence of narcotics—Trial Court after conviction of the accused had directed the Truck used in the transportation o

2004 PCRLJ 2060 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

SHAREEF KHAN VS THE STATE

—-Ss. 516-A & 439—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(b), 32 & 33(1)—Custody of motorcycle on Superdari–Evidence, prima facie, was available on record to support the contention of the applicant that he was the owner of the motorc

2004 PCRLJ 746 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Khan MUHAMMAD KHAN VS THE STATE

—-Ss. 9(c), 32 & 33—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.516-A & 517—Confiscation of car used in offence—Application to recall confiscation order—Car allegedly used in commission of offence was ordered by the Special Court to be confiscated a

2003 SCMR 246 SUPREME-COURT

ABDUL SALAM VS THE STATE

Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 —-Ss. 32 & 74—Release of the vehicle on “Superdari”—Vehicle involved in the transportation of the narcotics, according to S.74 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, would not be released during the trial, however absolute bar cannot be created for the release of the vehicle if as per S. 32 of the said Act it is, prima facie, established that the owner had no knowledge of the narcotics having been transported in it—Trial Court essentially can form such opinion after taking into consideration the facts of the case—Judicial discretion can also be exercised for release of the vehicle temporarily on “Superdagi” in view of the principle that if a Court can grant final relief it also possesses inherent jurisdiction to grant temporary relief pending proceedings before it subject to, prima facie, fulfilling the conditions by the applicant under the law for getting relief finally from the Court.

2003 PLD 87 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

THE STATE VS RASHID

Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 —-S. 32(2), proviso—Articles connected with narcotics—Expression “owner” used’ in S.32—Scope—Word “owner” used in proviso to S.32 is significant —Rights of owners who had no knowledge of the commission of offence or had no conscious hand in the crime on the owner of the vehicle who may be running a taxi-service or had given the car to Rent a Car service or whether he had handed a vehicle to a driver for running an errand for him and had nothing to do with the crime were fully protected—If such a vehicle, owner of which was not involved in the commission of offence was ultimately to be released on conclusion of trial, there appears to be no lawful justification to keep the same in custody for misuse of the official of the detaining agency.

2003 PCRLJ 436 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

HAFIZ ULLAH VS THE STATE

—-Ss. 19 & 32(2)—Forfeiture of assets of the offender—In the situation mentioned in S.19 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, the assets “shall stand forfeited”, whereas in the situation mentioned in S.32(2) of the said Act the vehicle e

2002 PCRLJ 666 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

ABDUL HAMID VS THE STATE

—S. 516-A—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.6, 7, 8, 9, 74 & 32—Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts.3/4—Custody of the vehicle—Record did not show that the vehicle in question was used in the commission o