WAJID ALI vs The STATE
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Court, Peshawar, which ordered the confiscation of a tractor-trolley involved in a narcotics case registered under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The appellant, claiming to be a bona fide purchaser, sought the return of the vehicle, arguing that the trial court failed to issue notice to the owner as required by Section 33 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The State contended that the appeal was not maintainable as neither the accused nor the registered owner had claimed the vehicle during the trial or investigation. The Court held that the confiscation order was lawful because the appellant failed to approach the trial court during the proceedings, and the registered owner did not contest the confiscation. The Court distinguished the appellant's cited precedent, noting that in that case, the owner had actively claimed the vehicle during the trial. The Court affirmed that the mandatory notice requirement under Section 33 is not triggered when no claimant appears during the trial proceedings. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.
- Is a trial court required to issue notice to an owner before confiscating a vehicle in a narcotics case if no claimant has appeared during the trial?
- Does the failure to claim a vehicle during the investigation or trial preclude a subsequent appeal for its return?
- Can a person claiming to be a bona fide purchaser challenge a confiscation order if the registered owner has not contested the order?
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 33, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
' MALIK MANZOOR HUSSAIN, J.---This preferred 16-1-2013 Peshawar, Criminal Appeal has been against the judgment dated learned whereby Judge, the Special vehicle Court, bearing Registration No,STR-8403, Tractor Trolley was ordered to be confiscated to the State in a narcotics case registered under F.I.R. No,413 dated 12-4-2012 under section 9(c) C.N.S.A., at Police Station Bhana Mari.
2. Briefly, the facts reflected in the appeal are that on 12-4-2012, a huge quantity of Charas weighing 84 Kgs was recovered from the said Tractor Trolley and taken into possession by the local police of P.S. Bhana Mari. After completion of trial, vide judgment dated 16-1-2013, the learned Judge, Special Court, Peshawar confiscated the vehicle to the State being involved in the crime.
The appellant now seeks return of the same through instant appeal, being the last purchaser.
3. Learned counsel for appellant argued that the appellant is bona fide purchaser of the Tractor and under section 33 of C.N.S.A., it was mandatory provision that the owner of the, vehicle should be given notice before making order of confiscation. In this respect she relied on judgment reported in 2010 PCr..LJ 1145.
4. Conversely, learned A.A.-G., appearing on behalf of the State contended that the appeal is not maintainable on the ground that neither the accused has preferred any appeal nor the original owner in whose name the vehicle was registered have come forward. He further contended that as there was no claimant before the Trial Court, therefore, there was no need of issuing notice before passing the impugned order.
' Arguments heard, record perused.
5. From the perusal of record, we have noticed that the Tractor Trolley was taken into possession by local police on 12-4-2012, the trial was concluded on 16-1-2013 and the present appeal was filed on 17-4-2013, but neither during investigation nor during trial the appellant bothered to apply to the concerned quarters for return of the vehicle and it was exactly after one year of the custody of the vehicle, that he applied for return of the same and that too by filing the present appeal. It has also been noticed by this court that neither an application was made by the accused charged in the offence for return of vehicle nor any appeal was filed by him with regard to confiscation of the same and now on the basis of copy of a simple Iqrar Nama, the appellant claims ownership of the same. The original owners have also not applied for return of vehicle and were not aggrieved of the impugned 'order of confiscation.
6. So far as the objection of learned counsel for the appellant that no notice was issued to the actual owner before confiscation of the vehicle is not tenable in the eye of law and the judgment referred to by the learned counsel is also of no help to the appellant. The same is distinguishable on the ground that in that case the original owners came forward during trial and applied to the trial Court for return of vehicle which was not allowed and the Hon'ble High Court taking notice of the fact that the compliances of section 33 C.N.S.A. Were violated during the course of confiscation of the vehicle, thus' they rightly struck down the confiscation order being violative of law. In the case in hand neither the original owner in whose name the vehicle was registered nor the present appellant appeared during investigation or trial to claim the same. It has also been noticed that when the vehicle documents produced or recovered from the accused and neither the same was exhibited during trial which fact has duly been narrated by P.W.2 Aziz Ullah A.S.-I.
' In view of what has been discussed above, this appeal being without any merits is dismissed.