SALIH MUHAMMAD Versus NIAZ MUHAMMAD
This appeal was filed under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, challenging an order by the Special Court (CNS), Peshawar, which confiscated a truck used in the commission of a narcotics offense to the State. The core legal question was whether the appellant, claiming to be the bona fide owner of the vehicle, was entitled to its release despite failing to appear before the trial court or provide authentic ownership documentation. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant failed to establish a legitimate claim of ownership. The judgment emphasized that the appellant was not a party before the trial court and failed to apply for the vehicle's release during the initial proceedings. Furthermore, the Court ruled that it could not adjudicate the authenticity of ownership documents, such as a photocopy of an affidavit on a stamp paper, for the first time in appellate proceedings. The key principle laid down is that a claimant seeking the release of a confiscated vehicle must demonstrate genuine ownership through solid, convincing material before the trial court, rather than raising such claims for the first time on appeal.
- Can a claimant for a confiscated vehicle raise ownership claims for the first time in an appeal if they failed to appear before the trial court?
- Is a photocopy of an affidavit on stamp paper sufficient evidence to establish ownership of a vehicle confiscated under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
- Does the failure to issue notice to an alleged owner invalidate a confiscation order if the trial court followed procedure regarding the registered owner?
- Section 48, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 32, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 33, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 74, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 517, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 9(C), Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 204, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 87, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
WAQAR AHMAD SETH, J.- --Appellant, Salih Muhammad son of Taj Muhammad has filed this appeal under section 48 C.N.S.A., 1997 read with section 32/33/74 C.N.S.A., 1997 and 517, Cr.P.C. against the order and judgment dated 14-9-2011 of learned Judge Special Court (CNS), Peshawar whereby the vehicle/truck bearing registration No.BM-2345 has been confiscated to the State.
2. Precise facts are that vehicle in question was taken into possession by the ANF official Peshawar, in case F.I.R. No.25 dated 3-4-2011 under section 9(C) C.N.S.A., 1997 from the possession of driver namely Mahmood Alam accused in the case, who died on the spot because of cardiac arrest. Investigation was done and on completion whereof complete challan was submitted in the court concerned.
3. During the trial, the truck No.BM-2345 which was used in the commission of the offence was confiscated to the State because the person in whose name it stand registered i.e. Haji Niaz Muhammad did not turn up despite issuance of notice to him and subsequently initiating proceedings against him in terms of sections 204 and 87, Cr.P.C., hence this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that appellant is the legal, genuine and last bona fide purchaser of the vehicle in question and being the real owner he is entitle for its possession as there is no other rival claimant of the same; that prior to confiscation no notice was issued to him and as such the principle of natural justice are violated; that the vehicle in question is the sole bread earning source for the appellant and his entire family; that the appellant had no conscious knowledge of the contraband and the accused charged therein was the driver.
5. As against this, learned counsel for the State submitted that appellant never appeared before the trial court nor placed on record any authentic documents showing that he is the real owner and as such the court did not issued any notice to him rather, according to the original registration book, the owner namely Haji Niaz Muhammad was issued notice in this respect.
6. Arguments heard and record perused.
7. It appears that appellant was never a party before the trial court. If he is a genuine/legal owner of the vehicle in question he would have applied before the trial court for the release of vehicle in question because being an owner it is presumed that after the custody by the ANF staff in a case the owner would have the knowledge of the same and the authenticity of the documents produced at this stage cannot be made.
8. In view of the above, the appellant cannot be given licence of the ownership in this appeal, on the basis of a photo copy of a document/affidavit obtained on Rs.30 stamp paper. In the absence of any solid genuine and convincing material on record, the appeal in hand is dismissed with no order as to costs.
M.W.A./95/P Appeal dismissed.