AKRAM KHAN and 2 others vs THE STATE
The petitioners, convicted under Article 3 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, for transporting a large quantity of Charas in a truck, sought relief from the Supreme Court. In the first petition, the petitioners did not contest their conviction and sentence but requested the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the computation of their imprisonment. The State did not oppose this request, and the Court granted the benefit. In the second petition, the owner of the confiscated truck challenged the confiscation order, arguing he was denied an opportunity to show cause. The Federal Shariat Court had previously rejected his appeal as incompetent. The Supreme Court held that the appeal should have been treated as a revision and that the law requires notice and a hearing for the owner before a vehicle can be confiscated. Consequently, the Court remanded the matter to the Federal Shariat Court to be disposed of as a revision in accordance with the law.
- Is the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to sentences under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979?
- Is it a legal requirement to provide notice and a hearing to the owner of a vehicle before ordering its confiscation?
- Can an incompetent appeal be treated as a revision by the appellate court?
- Article 3, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The Petitioners in Criminal Petition No,88- R(S)/1988 stand convicted under Article 3 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 and sentenced to three years' R.I. And a fine of Rs,1,000 or in default to undergo further six months' R.I. And ten stripes each.
2. Akram Khan, Petitioner No,1 was driving the Truck No,7312-PRF and Sher Gul, Petitioner No,2, was sitting alongwith him. At the check post 'AttockKhurd' it was searched and concealed chambers were discovered containing 268 packets of Charas weighing in all 7 Maunds and 9 kilograms. They were found guilty, convicted and sentenced.
3. The learned counsel representing them in this case wanted that benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
To be extended to them as he did not contest the conviction and sentence. Notice was given to the State. Mr. Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, Assistant Advocate-General has appeared and he has nothing to say in respect of this prayer made on behalf of the Petitioners. Therefore, we convert this Petition into an appeal and allow it to that limited extent and direct that in computing their sentence of imprisonment benefit of section 382-B, Cr. P.C. Shall be extended to them.
4. The other Criminal Petition (Cr. P.No,89-R(S)/88) has been preferred by Khial Mansha who claims to be the owner of the Truck and he appealed to the Federal Shariat Court against the judgment of the trial Court confiscating the truck without allowing him an opportunity to show cause against it. The appeal was rejected on the ground that it was not competent and there was nothing illegal in the order.
5. We had issued notice to the State and after hearing the learned Assistant Advocate-General (Mr.Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi), we convert this Petition also into an appeal and allow it. It is conceded that the appeal which was incompetent could he treated as Revision and dealt with. The learned counsel for the Petitioner/owner has drawn our attention to the decisions given in the cases Haji Ahdur Razzaq v. Pakistan (PLD 1974 SC 5) and lqbal Elahi v. The State (1987 SCMR 1274) to point out that notice to the owner and hearing him in the matter was requirement of the law before the confiscation of the vehicle could he ordered. We remand the matter (Cr.P.'No,89- R(S)/1988) to the Federal Shariat Court for disposal of the appeal as a Revision in the light of the law applicable to the case.
Cited by 2 cases
- MUHAMMAD IMRAN vs STATE 2006 PLJ FSC 203
- MUHAMMAD IMRAN Versus State 2006 PCRLJ 954