Citation Name: 2023 MLD 1163 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case RIZWAN ULLAH vs State Ss

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Citation Name: 2023 MLD 1163 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case 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.

Citation Name: 2023 MLD 1163 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case RIZWAN ULLAH vs State Ss — 2023 MLD 1163 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 MLD