Citation Name: 2023 YLR 770 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case MUSTAJAB UL HASSAN 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 YLR 770 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case MUSTAJAB UL HASSAN VS State Ss. 34-a & 34-B---articles connected with narcotics, procedure for making confiscation---Superdari of vehicle used in transportation of narcotics---application for superdari of vehicle was dismissed on the ground that the motorcar in question was involved in smuggling / transportation of huge quantity of narcotics---Scope---Record revealed that the crime was reported within a period of ten days by contending therein that he was the purchaser of vehicle in question and there was no other rival claimant of it---First proviso of sub-clause (2) of S. 34-B made it abundantly clear that no such property shall be confiscated unless within one month from the date of freezing or seizer any claimant thereto was given an opportunity of being heard along with evidence if any pertaining to his claim---Record of the case promulgated that neither Investigating Officer of criminal case had collected any evidence nor issued any notice within a period of one month after seizer of vehicle in question nor the trial court had made any effort in consonance with the provision of Ss.34-a & 34-B of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances act, 2019---First proviso of sub-clause (2) of S.34-B of the act was not limited to the extent of owner because the legislature had intentionally used the word "any person" instead of "registered owner" in the said section so that the person might be the registered owner or purchaser of vehicle through any instrument but had not been registered as its owner yet, or any person having any interest or claim thereto may approach to the court to entitle to be put on notice, in order to prove his claim, if any, through evidence and till then no such property would be confiscated---appellant had submitted his application for superdari of vehicle in question within a period of ten days from the date of crime report---Of course, appellant had got a claim regarding the property in question and was required to be served with a notice prior to submission of complete challan before the court by the Seizing Officer/Investigating Officer--- If during investigation, Investigating Officer of the case had not served him with a notice, as required, the court after submission of complete challan was required to serve the appellant with a notice about his claim pertaining to the motorcar in question and by not doing so, neither the Seizing Officer nor the Court had complied with the legal requirements/formalities as provided in S. 34-B of the act---Proviso of S. 34-a of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances act, 2019 and that of S. 32 of Control of Narcotic Substances act, 1997, was the same which provided that property used in an offence under the act could only be confiscated when it was established that the owner of the vehicle knew that the offence was or being committed---When appellant claimed himself to be owner was entitled to be given a notice by the Seizing Officer or by the Court for providing him an opportunity of being heard pertaining to his claim clinched with the vehicle in question, by not doing so the trial Court had committed an illegality---appeal to the extent of confiscation of vehicle was allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment and the case was remanded to the Trial Court to decide it after issuing a notice to the appellant in view of proviso to sub-clause (2) of S. 34-a & first proviso to sub-clause (2) of S. 34-B of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Control of Narcotic Substances act, 2019, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2023 YLR 770 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case MUSTAJAB UL HASSAN vs State Ss — 2023 YLR 770 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 YLR