The State through Regional Director V. Farooq Khan,

2023 Y L R 2264 [Balochistan] Before Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar and Shaukat Ali Rakhshani, JJ The STATE through Regional Director---Appellant Versus FAROOQ KHAN---Respondent Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 68 of 2022, decided on 15th June, 2023. Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997) --- ----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. Allah Dita v. The State 2010 SCMR 1181 and Abdul Salam v. The State 2003 SCMR 246 ref. Habib -ur-Rehman Baloch, Special Prosecutor ANF for the State. Date of hearing: 15th May, 2023. ORDER SHAUKAT ALI RAKHSHANI, J. ---The instant appeal emanates from an order dated 10 -12-2021 ("impugned order") drawn by Special Judge (CNS), Balochistan, Quetta ("Trial Court"), whereby a Toyota Corolla GLI 2016 Model Car bearing Registration No.BGR -660, Engine No. Z463367 and Chassis No.NZE170R4090493 was released on Superdari to respondent Farooq Khan.

2. A Toyota Car bearing Registration No.BGR -660 was intercepted on 26.08.2021 by a contingent of ANF driven by one Amanullah and on checking beneath the driving seat 1.500 kg of charas was recovered, as such the driver was indicted thereof.

3. The respondent, who was not an accused filed an application under section 516- A, Cr.P.C. for release of vehicle on superdari, which was allowed on 10.12.2021, impugned herein.

4. Heard. Record perused.

5. Indisputably, the respondent has not been indicted in the instant case. There are two provisions which deals with the release of the vehicle seized as a conveyance used in the trafficking of contraband. Section 74 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 ("Act of 1997") relates to custody before conclusion of the case, the connotation whereof is in negative as it states 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 section 33 of the Act ibid, whereas, section 32(2) 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. In the case of 'Allah Dita v. The State' (2010 SCMR 1181), the bar contained under section 74 of the Act of 1997 was removed by the apex Court, while enunciating a dicta that an innocent owner of a vehicle, who is unaware of the crime is entitled to the temporary custody of the vehicle, whilst placing reliance upon the case of 'Abdul Salam v. The State' (2003 SCMR 246).

6. The respondent is the recorded owner of the vehicle in question, which he has leased on loan from United Bank Limited. He has come up with a plea that he runs business of rent a car by the name and style of '3- Star Rent A Car'. According to the affidavits sworn by him, on 23.08.2021 he rented out the vehicle in question to accused Amanullah for out city @ Rs.4500/ - per day, who paid an advance of Rs. 10,000/ -. He also pleaded that he was absolutely unaware of the narcotics, so transported by accused Amanullah in his vehicle, as such he is not at fault, thus his case comes within the preview of sections 32 and 33 of the Act of 1997.

7. We have minutely gone through the impugned order of release of the vehicle on superdari, which has not been found to be suffering from any infirmity or illegality. For what has been discussed hereinabove, the appeal being shorn of merits is dismissed in limine. MQ/97/Bal. Appeal dismissed.