THE STATE through Dy. Director (Legal) ANF vs FARUUKH NADEEM through Branch Manager

' M. BILAL KHAN, J.---This appeal under section 48 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 has been directed by the State through Deputy Director (Legal) ANF, Lahore against the order, dated 17-4-2006 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, C.N.S., Lahore, whereby application filed by the respondent seeking Superdari of vehicle bearing Registration No, STP-484 was allowed.

2. Succinctly the facts giving rise to this appeal were that a case F.I.R. No,58, for offences under sections 9(c)/15 of the Control ofNarcotic Substances Act, 1997 had been registered with Police Station ANF, Lahore on 27-12-2005 for an occurrence, in which 11 kilograms of heroin had been recovered from possession of one Muhammad Yousaf during search of his suitcase at ANF Counter. Allama Iqbal International Airport, Lahore and the aforesaid vehicle was seized by the ANF authorities under section 550, Cr.P.C. Allegedly being involved in the trafficking of the said narcotic substance, the vehicle in question vested in the Union Leasing Limited, 109-Aziz Shaheed Road, Silakot Cantt., and had been leased to Messrs Unit Tara Impex; the said Leasing Company through Farrukh Nadeem had moved an application for the Superdari of the vehicle, afore-referred to, before the learned Judge, Special Court, C.N.S., Lahore, which was allowed vide order, dated 17-4- 2006. Hence, the instant appeal.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for both the sides at considerable length and have also gone through the impugned order. It has been observed that the learned trial Judge while passing the impugned order has rightly observed that there was no evidence on record to show that the vehicle in question had been used in the trafficking of narcotic substances allegedly recovered from MuhammadYousaf accused. Even the learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to establish locus standi of the A.N.F. Authorities to challenge ownership of the vehicle. Admittedly the car in question was owned by the Leasing Company and there being no rival claimant, the vehicle had rightly been given to the respondent on Superdari.

4. After going through the impugned order, we are of the view that the same is based upon solid reasons. The learned Special Judge was right in ordering interim release of the vehicle to the respondent-Company. It is not the case of Anti-Narcotics Force that the vehicle in question did not vest in the said Company. Section 74 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 if read in conjunction with section 32 of the said Act, does not create an absolute bar for the release of a vehicle. All that the owner is required to do is to prima facie establish that he had no knowledge that the vehicle was being used for transporting narcotics. No illegality had been pointed out calling for interference by this Court in the order impugned herein.

5. For what has been discussed above, there is no merit in thislc appeal, which is hereby dismissed.