GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN Versus MIR BADSHAH

ORDER

SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑ ‑‑The petitioners, Government of Pakistan. and its functionaries, seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 27‑2‑1988, whereby the order of the Customs Authorities imposing a redemption fine of Rs.10,000 on the owner of the truck found currying smuggled and contraband goods, was declared to be illegal and without lawful authority.

2. The respondent was the owner of the truck. It was searched on 12‑6‑1967. At that time the truck was being driven by one Hussain Khan. The owners of the goods in the truck, Mushtari Gull and Abdul Razak, were present apart from Khan Badshah; the cleaner of the truck. On checking the goods, 31 crates of betelnuts of foreign origin and 14 crates containing charas were recovered. A notice was served on the respondent, amongst others, and the explanation of the respondent as owner of the truck was that the driver Hussain Khan and the cleaner Khan Badshah were told by the owner of the goods that the crates contained plums (Aloo Bokhara). The High Court by the impugned judgment followed the law laid down by this Court in Haji Abdul Razzak v. Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and another (P L D 1974 SC 5) and finding no evidence to connect the owner directly or vicariously with the criminal act complained of accepted the Constitution Petition and declared the imposition of the redemption fine on the truck owner to be without lawful authority.

3. The learned Deputy Attorney‑General has contended that the vehicle used for committing the crime of smuggling or transportation of narcotics is liable. to be confiscated. In view of such a provision of the law, the knowledge of the owner has to be assumed on account of the vicarious responsibility, as his paid employees, the driver and cleaner were present and participating in the commission of the crime. No further evidence was required to establish such a responsibility.

4. The law on the subject has been authoritatively laid down, and the Courts in the country have been following the decision of this Court, in the case of Haji Abdur Razzak (P L D 1974 SC 5). The requirements indicated in that decision were not satisfied in the case in hand and the High Court was amply justified in passing the impugned judgment.

5. In view of the law already declared by the Supreme Court, no further question requires examination. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.

A.A./G‑286/S Leave refused.