2025 P Cr. L J 1540
[Balochistan]
Before Rozi Khan Barrech and Shaukat Ali Rakhshani, JJ
MUHAMMAD ASAD--- Appellant
Versus
The STATE--- Respondent
Criminal CNS Appeal No. 364 of 2024, decided on 10th March, 2025.
Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) ---
----Ss. 9(c) & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 516- A---Transportation of
narcotics ---Articles connected with narcotics ---Order for custody and disposal of
property pending trial in certain cases ---Scope ---Appellant assailed order passed by
Trial Court whereby his application for superdari of vehicle , from which narcotics was
recovered, was dismissed--- Validity ---Admittedly, the vehicle in question was
registered in the name of appellant way back on 18.11.2020, even before the seizure of vehicle in the crime ibid, but the appellant was neither booked in the instant case as a co-accused nor figured anywhere as an absconder ---Albeit, there was sluggishness on
the part of applicant to approach the Court in time during the trial, but merely on such
ground, the appellant could not be deprived of his vehicle, more particularly, when he had not been attributed any role in the instant case ---Appellant claimed that he had
rented out the vehicle in question to accused and he was absolutely unaware about the said narcotics concealed and transported in his vehicle ---Clause (2) of Section ibid
empowers the Trial Court to confiscate the vehicle on conclusion of the trial, provided no vehicle or conveyance shall be confiscated unless it is proved that owner thereof knows that the offence is being or was to be committed ---Thus, it was the duty of the
prosecution to establish that the owner of the vehicle was having knowledge about the presence of the narcotics in his vehicle, which was not the case---Besides, the impugned order dated 20.07.2024 was also contrary to law and non- speaking, which could not be
allowed to hold field ---Impugned judgment dated 19.08.2022 passed by the Trial Court
to the extent of confiscation of truck was set aside and the vehicle in question was ordered to be released to the appellant, after due verification and physical examination from the concerned departments ---Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.
Ajmal Khan Kakar and Yasir Khan Kakar for Appellant.
Ms. Noor Jahan Kakar, Additional Prosecutor General ("APG") for the State.
Date of hearing: 6th March, 2025.
JUDGMENT
SHAUKAT ALI RAKHSHANI, J .--- This judgment of ours, aim to dispose of the
captioned criminal appeal preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 19.08.2022 ("impugned judgment") penned by learned Additional Sessions Judge -I, Sariab ("Trial
Court") (to the extent of confiscation of Hino Truck bearing Registration No.NAE -503)
("vehicle in question"), which was seized in case vide FIR No.30 of 2021 dated 26.02.2021 registered with Police Station Shalkot, Quetta for the offence punishable under section 9 (c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 ("Act of 1997") as well as against the order dated 20.07.2024 ("impugned order"), whereby application filed under section 517 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 ("Cr.P.C") for superdari was dismissed.
2. Facts necessary for disposal of the instant appeal are that on 26.02.2021 a Hino Truck
Bearing Registration No.NAE -503, driven by accused persons namely Abdul Qadir and co-
accused Ismatullah, while seated beside him was intercepted by the police officials, wherefrom 574 Kgs of 'Charas' and 7 Kgs of 'Opium' were recovered from the secret cavities
of the vehicle in question, thus on conclusion of the investigation, they were put on trial and
after a full fledged trial, co -accused Ismatullah was acquitted, whereas accused Abdul Qadir
was convicted and sentenced to death under section 9 (c) read with section 15 of the Act of 1997 vide judgment dated 19.08.2022 and the vehicle in question was confiscated. The said judgment was challenged by accused Abdul Qadir before this Court, which was dismissed
vide judgment dated 09.05.2024, however, the sentence of death was converted into life
imprisonment.
3. Thereafter in June, 2024, the appellant filed an application under section 517 of
Cr.P.C for release of his vehicle on superdari before the Trial Court, claiming to be the
bonafide owner of the vehicle in question, which application was dismissed vide impugned order dated 20.07.2024, hence this appeal.
4. Heard. Record vetted with the able assistance of learned counsel for the adversarial
parties.
5. Admittedly, the vehicle in question is registered in the name of appellant way back
on 18.11.2020, even before the seizure of vehicle in the crime ibid, but the appellant was
neither booked in the instant case as a co -accused nor figures anywhere as an absconder.
Albeit, there is sluggishness on his part to approach the court in time during the trial, but
merely on such ground, the appellant cannot be deprived of his vehicle, more particularly, when he is not been attributed any role in the instant case. The appellant claims that he had rented out the vehicle in question to accused Abdul Qadir and he was absolutely unaware
about the said narcotics being concealed and transported in his vehicle.
6. Section 32 of the Act of 1997 contemplates certain conditions for release of vehicle,
which for ease of understanding is reproduced herein below;
"32. Articles connected with narcotics. - (1) Whenever any offence has been
committed which is punishable under this Act, the narcotic drug, psychotropic
substance or controlled substance, materials, apparatus and utensils in respect of which, or by means of which, such offence has been committed shall be liable to confiscation.
(2) Any narcotic drug, psychotropic substance or controlled substance lawfully imported, transported, manufactured, possessed, or sold along with, or in addition to, any narcotic drug, psychotropic substance or controlled substance which is liable to confiscation under subsection (1) and the receptacles or packages, and the vehicles, vessels and other conveyances used in carrying such drugs and substances shall likewise be liable to confiscation:
Provided that no vehicle, vessel or other conveyance shall be liable to confiscation unless it is proved that the owner thereof knew that the offence was being, or was to be committed."
[Emphasize added]
7. Clause (2) of section ibid empowers the trial Court to confiscate the vehicle on
conclusion of the trial, provided no vehicle or conveyance shall be confiscated unless it is proved that owner thereof knew that the offence was being or was to be committed, thus it was the duty of the prosecution to establish that the owner of the vehicle was having knowledge about the presence of the narcotics in his vehicle, which is not the case. Besides above, the impugned order dated 20.07.2024 is also contrary to law and non- speaking, which
cannot be allowed to hold field.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment dated
19.08.2022 passed by the Trial Court to the extent of confiscation of Hino Truck bearing Registration No.NAE -503 is set aside and the order dated 20.07.2024 in respect of the
dismissal of the application filed under section 517 of Cr.P.C is also set aside.
The vehicle in question be released to the appellant, after due verification and
physical examination from the concerned departments.
JK/49/Bal. Appeal allowed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.