Loading... Account
Dark Mode
Step 1 of 8

Welcome!

Let's learn how to use the search features effectively.
Step 1 of 7

Welcome!

Let's learn how to use the search features effectively.

Search Results: Categories: 516 CrPC (11 found)

ABDUL HAKEEM VS The STATE

Citation: 2025 MLD 569

Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 268 of 2023

Judgment Date: 16-09-2023

Jurisdiction: Balochistan High Court

Judge: Muhammad Kamran Khan Mulakhail and Iqbal Ahmed Kasi, JJ

Summary: (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 — S. 32 — Confiscation of vehicle — Prerequisite of owner’s knowledge — Tanker allegedly used for transporting narcotics — Owner not nominated in FIR nor prosecuted — No evidence produced to establish that the owner had knowledge of the vehicle being used for illegal transport of narcotics — Held, mere use of vehicle in offence is not sufficient for confiscation unless prosecution proves owner’s awareness of criminal use — Confiscation in absence of such proof is unlawful — Order of confiscation set aside. Allah Ditta v. The State 2010 SCMR 1181 ref. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) — S. 516-A — Superdari of vehicle — Right of restoration to lawful owner — Vehicle/tanker seized during narcotics investigation and accused acquitted — Lawful owner not involved in crime and no link established — Trial Court rejected superdari application without considering absence of owner’s culpability — Held, owner entitled to repossession where no evidence of complicity exists — Appellant’s ownership established through documentary evidence — Direction issued for return of vehicle after due verification. (c) Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 — S. 32 — Scope and interpretation — Seizure of vehicle permissible only if it is (i) used for carrying narcotics, or (ii) derived from narcotics proceeds, or (iii) contains hidden compartments used for concealment — Even in such cases, burden lies on prosecution to prove owner's intent or knowledge — Confiscation without fulfillment of legal prerequisites violates safeguards under S. 32 — Vehicle liable to be returned if owner unaware of illicit use. (d) Acquittal — Effect on property used in alleged offence — Where primary accused acquitted and no proof of owner’s involvement or awareness exists, continued seizure of property becomes punitive — Held, confiscation cannot survive in light of acquittal and absence of mens rea on part of lawful owner — Property to be returned unless State proves exception under law. Disposition: Appeal allowed. Order of confiscation dated 30.05.2023 set aside. Tanker bearing Registration No.TLC-325 to be handed over to appellant upon due verification.

Disclaimer: AI/GPT is not a substitute for legal advice. The content on this website is for research only. In case of breach of T.O.S, PLDB reserves the right to revoke or ban membership at any time without notice. Pak Legal Database ® 2023-2026. All Rights Reserved. Version 4.05.2a. Designed & developed by theblinklabs.com

error: Content Protection Enabled
Scroll to Top