2020 Y L R 731
[Balochistan]
Before Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Abdul Hameed Baloch, JJ
DIRECTOR GENERAL, PAKISTAN COAST GUARD HEAD QUARTER, KARACHI
through Deputy Attorney General ---Petitioner
Versus
SIKANDAR---Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No. (T) 14 of 2019, decided on 30th August, 2019.
Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) ---
----S. 32 ---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.516- A---Superdari of vehicle ---Articles
connected with narcotics ---Knowledge of the owner of vehicle ---Scop e---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.
Allah Ditta v. State 2010 SCMR 1181 rel.
Attaullah Langove, Assistant Attorney General -III for Petitioner.
None present for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 29th August, 2019.
ORDER
ABDUL HAMEED BALOCH, J .---This Criminal Revision Petition is directed
against the order dated 15th January, 2019 ("impugned order") passed by the Special Judge CNS Gwadar ("trial court") whereby the application filed by the respondent under Section 516- A of the Code of Criminal Pr ocedure, 1898 ("Cr.P.C.") for Superdari of Oil Tanker
bearing Registration Nos. TUA -820 was accepted.
2. The necessary facts for disposal of the instant petition are that complainant Sobedar
Muhammad Javed lodged an FIR No.47/2016 with Pakistan Coast Guards, Pasni alleging
therein that on 27th April, 2016 at Badook Road, Check Post an Oil Tanker was intercepted on suspicion. The drive told his name Sana Ullah while the person sitting on the read seat told his name Sajid. The Oil Tanker was searched, resultantly 45 bales of Charas weighing 900 kilograms were recovered from secret cavities of the said Oil Tanker. The said Oil
Tanker was taken into custody as case property.
3. After submission of challan and full dressed trial the trial court vide impugned
judgment acquitted the respondent of the charge, however no order was passed in respect of
the case property i.e. Oil Tanker, as such after pronouncement of judgment in the main case
the respondent filed an application under Section 516- A, Cr.P.C. before the t rial court for
superdari of the said Oil Tanker, which was accepted vide impugned order. Hence this petition.
4. Heard. The record perused.
5. The perusal of record reveals that the Pakistan Coast Guard Pasni lodged an FIR
No.3603/2016 against Sana Ullah a nd Sajid and on concluding of trial both of them were
convicted by the trial court vide judgment dated 24.10.2017. Thereafter the respondent filed an application under Section 516- A, Cr.P.C. for release of Oil Tanker on superdari, which
was accepted by the trial court vide impugned order. The record transpired that since passing
of judgment dated 24.10.2017 in the main case no claimant of the oil tanker came forward. The respondent has produced legal documents of the vehicle (oil tanker) which was verified by the trial court from Excise and Taxation Department Hub. The Act did not put embargo that such a vehicle shall not be released on superdari to the bona fide owner of the same.
Section 32 of the Act being relevant is reproduced as under:
S.32. Articles connected with narcotics.---(1) Whenever an offence has been committed which is punishable under this Act, the narcotics 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, manufac -tured, possessed, or sold along with, or in addition to,
any narcotics 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 conveyance 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."
6. In view of the above provision the prosecution has to es tablish the knowledge of the
owner of the vehicle in respect of using the vehicle for smuggling of contraband material. The Act does not prohibit the release of vehicle in trafficking of narcotics, when the owner in any way has no nexus with the commission of the crime or the accused and was unaware that
this vehicle was being used for the crime.
7. For rendering this view, we are fortified from the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of Pakistan on the case of Allah Ditta v. State 2010 SCMR 1181, wherein it
has been held as under:
"We have found that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was aware
that his vehicle was used for the transportation of "Charas". The petitioner had produced documents before the courts that his car was leased to a Firm of 'Rent a
Car', which had rented it out to the accused. In the absence of any rebuttal by the prosecution of these documents, we do not agree with the findings of the High Court that the same may have been fabricated. We have also noted that there is no rival claimant of the vehicle. In these circumstances, the petitioner was entitled to the temporary custody of the vehicle."
8. The prosecution case is totally silent either in respect of involvement/ knowledge of
respondent towards the commission of the offence or usage of said vehicle in trafficking of the narcotics, as such keeping in view the principles of law of Superdari, when no other claimant has come forward to claim ownership of the same, and the respondent being in possession of valid documents, showing his undisputed ownership of the vehicle, is entitled for the custody of the same. We therefore are of the view that the order of the trial court being well reasoned needs no interference.
In view of above, the petition is dismisse d on merits.
SA/92/Bal. Petition dismissed.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.