ABDUL HAMID vs THE STATE
This petition was filed before the Peshawar High Court by the petitioner seeking temporary custody (superdari) of a vehicle used in the commission of a narcotics offense under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, after his applications were rejected by the lower forums. The core legal question was whether a vehicle used in a narcotics offense can be released to its owner under section 32 of the Act, notwithstanding the prohibition on custody transfers contained in section 74 of the same Act. The Court held that section 74, which restricts the release of vehicles used in transporting narcotics, cannot be interpreted independently of section 32, which protects the rights of an owner who had no knowledge or involvement in the crime. Finding no evidence that the petitioner had knowledge of the vehicle's illicit use, and noting that indefinite police custody would cause decay, the Court allowed the petition and ordered the release of the vehicle to the petitioner upon furnishing a bail bond.
- Can the prohibition on releasing a vehicle under Section 74 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 be applied to an owner who has no knowledge of or involvement in the crime?
- How should Section 74 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 be interpreted in relation to Section 32 of the same Act?
- Whether a vehicle used in a narcotics offense can be released to its owner on superdari if there is no evidence of the owner's conscious involvement in the crime?
- Section 6, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 7, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 8, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 9, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Article 3, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
- Article 4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979
- Section 32, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
- Section 74, Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997
' The petitioner herein whose vehicle has been used in the commission of a crime registered under sections, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 read with Articles 3/4 of the Prohibition. (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, vide. F.I.R. No,112, dated 4-5-2001, Police Station Ghombat, District Kohat, when failed to get the custody of the vehicle bearing Registration No,RIF- 8278 from the lower forums, moved this Court for the same.
2. It was mainly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is absolutely nothing on the record to show that the vehicle in question has been used in the commission of the crime with the knowledge of the petitioner; that he is an owner of the vehicle; and that in the absence of any rival claimant he is entitled to the custody of the same.
3. The learned State counsel while appearing on behalf of the State contended that any vehicle or conveyance used in the commission of the crime under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 is liable to confiscation provided it is proved that owner thereof knew that the vehicle was used for carrying the psychotropic substance.
4. A perusal of the record would indicate that so far there is nothing thereon to show that the vehicle was used in the commission of the crime with the knowledge of the petitioner. No doubt section 74 of the Act prohibits the grant of custody of a vehicle used in the import, export or transportation of narcotic substance to the accused or any of his associates or relatives or any private individual till the conclusion of the case but the application of this provision by no canons of interpretation can be extended to cover an owner who has no hand or involvement is the crime, as it cannot be construed independently of the provisiots contained in section 32 of the Act which protects the right of the owner who has no conscious hand in the commission of the crime.
5. Apart from this, retention of vehicle in police custody for an I B indefinite period would also serve no useful purpose.
6. A perusal of the documents placed on the file would prima facie show the petitioner to be the owner of the vehicle in question at least in the absence of any rival claimant.
7. As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, this petition is allowed and the local police is directed to hand over the custody of the vehicle to the petitioner, if he furnishes a bail bond in the sum of Rs,1,65,000 (Rupees one lac and sixty five thousand) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Court who is to ensure that the sureties are men of means.
8. However, this order will not prejudice the right of a rival claimant, if any, with a better title.
Cited by 8 cases
- Al-Baraka Bank (Pvt.) Ltd. through Authorized Representative vs The State 2024 PCRLJ 1196
- AURANGZEB vs THE STATE 2008 YLR 2370
- THE STATE through Director A.N.F., Peshawar vs ABDUL QADEER PARACHA 2008 P Cr. L J 1484
- ABDUL RASHEED vs STATE PLJ 2006 Cr.C. (Karachi) 1265
- ABDUL RASHEED vs THE STATE 2006 P Cr. L J 123
- SAS CARGO (PVT.) LTD. KARACHI through Manager Transport vs THE STATE 2005 MLD 869
- THE STATE vs RASHID 2002 PLD Peshawar 87
- THE STATE Versus RASHID 2003 PLD 87