Section 33 : Procedure for making confiscation
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 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 MLD 1163 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
RIZWAN ULLAH VS State
Ss. 24 & 33—Undercover and controlled delivery operations, procedure for making confiscation—Scope—Appellant assailed order passed by Trial Court only to the extent of confiscation of vehicle from which narcotic 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—Notice under S. 33 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (‘Act’) was mandatory to the claimant of the vehicle used in the commission of offence but in the present case neither at the earliest stage, pre-investigation and investigation, the appellant had ever floated his claim regarding ownership of the vehicle in question before the quarter concerned—Likewise, no claim in that regard had been furnished during the trial before the Court of competent jurisdiction—Subsection (2) of S. 32 of the Act speaks loud and clear of the confiscation of the vehicle used in the commission of offence; if it is proved that its ostensible owner is well in knowledge, directly or indirectly, of the bid pertaining to the transportation and smuggling of narcotics confiscation of the vehicle is permitted—Conscious knowledge of the owner regarding the use of the subject vehicle in the commission of offence was pre-requisite—Alleged bona-fide owner of the vehicle had to be put on notice followed by giving a fair chance of audience to him—Admittedly, no notice as envisaged under the Act was given to appellant by the Trial Court thus the order of confiscation of the vehicle was to be struck down on that sole ground—Moreover, Trial Court was bound to look for the mens rea on the part of appellant 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 appellant had any knowledge of transporting the narcotics—Provisions of Ss. 32 & 33 of the Act were beneficial enactments to safeguard the right of am innocent owner—To penalize a person in absence of mens rea would be unjust and confiscation of the vehicle would be harsh—Appeal was allowed by setting aside the impugned order to the extent of confiscation of the vehicle in question and case was remanded to the Trial Court with the direction to proceed with the claim of the appellant regarding the bona fide ownership of the vehicle in question.
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.
2018 MLD 932 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Mst. SAIRA KHAN VS State
Ss. 9(c), 33 & 48—Possessing and trafficking of narcotics—Confiscation of vehicle allegedly involved in the commission of offence—Appellant had sought return of the said vehicle claiming that her late husband was last purchaser of the vehicle—Trial Court dismissed the application by holding that partnership of late husband of the appellant with the accused could not be ruled out—Validity—Record showed that there was no rival claimant of the vehicle—Contraband were recovered from the vehicle along with a receipt from Rent-A-Car office, owned by the late husband of the appellant, which showed that accused had hired the vehicle for self driving which fact proved that the vehicle belonged to Rent-A-Car office—Previous owner of the vehicle appeared as court witness and deposed about sale of vehicle by the husband of appellant—Evidence suggested that the cavity from where the narcotic was recovered was not specially created in the vehicle—Declining request of the appellant for return of the vehicle was beyond jurisdiction of the Trial Court—Appeal was allowed 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 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 YLR 1081 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
WAJID ALI VS State
Ss. 9(c), 33 & 48—Possessing and trafficking of narcotics—Confiscation of vehicle allegedly involved in offence—Special court having confiscated the vehicle being involved in the crime, appellant had sought return of the same claiming to be last purchaser of vehicle in question—Appellant neither during investigation nor during trial, bothered to apply to the concerned quarters for return of the vehicle; and it was exactly after one year of the custody of the vehicle, that appellant applied for return of the same, and that too by filing appeal—Original owners had also not applied for return of vehicle and were not aggrieved of the impugned order of confiscation—When the vehicle was taken into possession, no registration book or valid documents were produced or recovered from accused, and neither same were exhibited during trial—Appeal claiming the return of vehicle in question being without any merits was dismissed, in circumstances.
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 932 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
FARMANULLAH VS BASHIR
Ss, 561-A & 517—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.33—Confiscation of vehicle allegedly used in offence—Dismissal of application for custody of vehicle on ‘Superdari’—Petition for quashing of order of dismissal—Nothing had been brought on the record to show that substance recovered from the vehicle in question was transported with the consent, connivance or complicity of the petitioner; or that contraband was kept in secret cavity of the vehicle—Retention of vehicle in Police custody would not be necessary for any purpose—Trial Court had to consider the title and registration of the vehicle in the name of the petitioner during trial as envisaged in S.33 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—If the vehicle was required for production and exhibition in the court, that could be arranged by directing the petitioner to produce the same, if and when required—Allowing petition, vehicle was directed to be released to the petitioner on furnishing bonds in the sum of Rs.5,00,000, with sureties.
2012 PCrLJ 886 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
SAID ZAREEN VS State
Ss. 9(c) & 33(2)—Possession and trafficking of narcotics—Appreciation of evidence—Benefit of doubt— Vehicle of appellant had been confiscated on the order of the Trial Court—Validity—Prosecution had failed to show conscious knowledge of the appellant and Trial Court had neither heard the appellant nor provided him an opportunity of producing evidence, as required under S.33(2) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997—Impugned order to the extent of the confiscation of the vehicle was set aside and vehicle in question was ordered to be returned to its lawful owner—Appeal was allowed.
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 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 YLR 2023 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SHER ALI VS State
Ss. 9(c), 33, 39 & 48—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.369—Possessing and trafficking narcotics—Confiscation of motorcycle—Application for seeking superdari of motorcycle—Dismissal of application holding that judgment qua confiscation could not be reviewed due to bar under S.369, Cr.P.C.—Validity—Section 369, Cr.P.C. had precluded court of criminal jurisdiction to alter its judgment after it had been written, signed and pronounced, except to correct a clerical error and even it also would apply to the judgments rendered by High Court in exercise of criminal original jurisdiction—In absence of any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, appeal against said order was devoid of legal justification and was dismissed.
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.
2008 YLR 2370 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
AURANGZEB VS State
Ss. 516-A & 561-A—Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Arts. 3/4—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9 & 33—Quashing of order—Petition for—Superdari of Bus, application for—Petitioner through petition filed under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C. had sought quashing of order passed by the Trial Court whereby his application for Superdari of Bus involved in criminal case, was dismissed—Trial Court before confiscation of Bus in question, was required to have issued a notice under S.33 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 to the petitioner/owner, which had not been so issued to him—Petitioner had no nexus with the commission of the offence and impugned order was passed by the Trial Court behind the back of the petitioner—Maxim of law “that nobody should be condemned unheard” which was well entrenched in the judicial system, had been violated by the Trial Court, in circumstances—Impugned order was quashed to the extent of confiscation of Bus and case was remanded to the Special Judge/Trial Court for decision afresh in accordance with law.
2008 PCrLJ 1484 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
THE STATE through Director A.N.F., Peshawar VS ABDUL QADEER PARACHA
- 561-A—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c), 33 & 46—West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13—Petition for quashing of order—Trial Court after recording of evidence while taking into consideration the material on record, came to conclusion that petitioner had proved himself to be the owner of the car in question; and same had been leased out to accused on rent; and he had no knowledge regarding the trafficking of the contraband in said car and the Trial Court had rightly declared him to be entitled to the custody of the car—No rival claimant of car in question had come forward and fact that owner had no nexus with the commission of the offence, he had a vested right to the custody of the car—Order of the Trial Court was perfectly sound, just and strictly in accordance with law, which called for no interference and was not liable to be quashed.
2008 MLD 1603 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
SHAKEEL ARSHAD VS State
- 516-A—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(b), 32 & 74—Return of vehicle on Superdari—Application of petitioner, who claimed to be owner of motor car in question, was turned down by the Special Court—Validity—Petitioner who was bona fide lawful owner of vehicle was earning his livelihood by plying the vehicle on rent through accused/driver—Petitioner was not accused person in the case and nothing’ was on record to show that petitioner had any knowledge that accused/driver would use his vehicle for committing any offence relating to narcotics and the law would not place the onus on the petitioner to prove his lack of knowledge in that regard—Rights of the owner who had no knowledge of the commission of offence or had no conscious hand in the crime, were fully protected—Courts would come to the rescue. of the owners when their vehicles were used without their knowledge for the commission of offence—Vehicle in question was parked in open space exposed to the vagaries of weather; its retention in police custody for an indefinite period would also achieve no useful purpose—Local Police of ANF was directed by High Court to hand over custody of vehicle to the petitioner on furnishing bail bond by him with two sureties.
2008 YLR 1767 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ABID LATIF VS State
Ss. 26, 33(2) & 74—Seizure and custody of vehicle—Principles—For the purposes of application of S.74 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, there has to be a lawful seizure of the vehicle in issue—Vehicle can be seized under 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 assets derived from narcotics offences and, thirdly where narcotics have been recovered from its secret chambers, cavities or compartments—Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, is a special law and its provisions have to be construed strictly—If such law itself does not provide for seizure of a vehicle in all other situations except those found and specified by High Court, then seizure of vehicle in all other situations may not only be illegal but also unnecessary and vexatious attracting prosecution and punishment of concerned officer under S.26 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.
2008 YLR 1767 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ABID LATIF VS State
Ss. 33(2), 48 & 74—Appeal—Custody of vehicle—Narcotics was recovered from physical possession of accused who was travelling in the vehicle owned by appellant and was being driven by brother of appellant—Appellant sought custody of vehicle on Superdari but it was refused by Trial court—Validity—Appellant’s vehicle could not lawfully have been seized by the officer upon recovery of narcotics from physical possession of the accused, as such the vehicle was not being used for transporting the recovered narcotics—Seizure of vehicle was not only unnecessary but also unwarranted under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Trial Court was not justified in dismissing appellant’s application seeking Superdari of the vehicle—High Court, in exercise of appellate jurisdiction, set aside the order passed by Trial Court and application submitted by appellant seeking Superdari of vehicle was accepted—High Court directed the Trial Court to pass appropriate order for releasing the vehicle on Superdari of appellant—Appeal was allowed in circumstances.
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
2005 PLD 81 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
MUHAMMAD UZAIR SIDDIQUI VS State
–Ss. 9 & 33(4)—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.516-A–ÂAppreciation of evidence—Destruction of remaining quantity of narcotics—Procedure—To establish that a particular quantity of narcotics was recovered from accused, prosecution was duty
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
2002 PCRLJ 837 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
THE STATE THROUGH CAPT. NOORUDDIN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ANTI-NARCOTICS FORCE,
MULTAN
VS MUHAMMAD KHALID
—S.516-A, second proviso—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.33—Application by State for destruction of case property–Procedure–If the cast: property is a dangerous drug/intoxicant/liquor or any other narcotics substance, specific
2002 PCRLJ 646 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
THE STATE VS MUHAMMAD KHALID
—-S.516-A, second proviso—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.33—Application by State for destruction of case property–Procedure—If the case property is a dangerous drug/intoxicant/liqour or substance, specific procedure has been