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.