P L D 2000 Lahore 62 (PLP)

(i) Foreign origin Charas weighing 150 Kgs. (gross); (ii)' Opium weighing 6.5 Kgs. (iii) Cartridge 200 Nos. of 44‑bore alongwith 5 magazines.

4. The driver and. the cleaner were interrogated about the presence of the contraband goods and ammunition but they failed to produce any justification or any legal permission to import or lawfully transport the foreign origin drugs and ammunition. There ‑was no passenger in the bus, which was seized and confiscated under sections 156(l) and 157 of the Customs Act 1969 read with sections 6, 7, 8 arid 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance, 1995. Both the driver and the cleaner were placed under arrest. A case was accordingly registered vide F.

1. R. No. 17 of 1996 dated 14‑8‑1996. the driver and cleaner of the bus showed their ignorance about the concealed contraband goods and contended that the bus was owned by Noor Bat Khan, and his close friend Zanzar Haji, who had asked them to take the bus to Lahore and that they would meet them at the Railway Station, Lahore to take the charge of the bus. However, they were intercepted by Customs Authorities before reaching the destination and as such had nothing to do with the transportation of the narcotics goods or the ammunition nor they had intention to commit any offence and that they were paid a sum of Rs. 10,000 for the trip.

5. The investigation conducted by the Additional Collector showed that the bus, was purchased by the present appellant in an auction and was got renovated from a workshop at Lahore. The appellant and his co‑accused Ghazi Khan stayed in the workshop at Lahore for more than a month and under their instruction ‑the secret cavities were fabricated as pointed out, above.

6. Appellant and others were issued show‑cause notice dated 3‑12‑1996 by the Additional Collector Customs calling upon them to, show cause against the seizure of the contraband goods, but they failed to appear to contest the show?-cause notice,. In view of the above circumstances the intercepted Bus No.PRQ‑5771 was directed to be confiscated and a personal penalty of Rs.50,000 was imposed on each of the offenders, without prejudice to any decision of the Special Judge, Customs. The order of the Additional. Collector was challenged in an appeal without success and finally. before the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lahore. The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal also failed vide judgment dated 4‑2‑1999. The present appeal has been filed against the aforesaid judgment.

8. We have considered the grounds and the arguments addressed by the teamed counsel for appellant, who has mainly emphasized that since the owner was not linked with the occurrence, therefore, the confiscated bus was liable to be 'released to him. In this respect, reliance was placed on Muhammad Jan and another v. Deputy Collector of Customs and 2 others reported as PLD 1988 Lahore 177 and Haji Abdul Razzak v. Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and another reported as PLD 1974 Supreme Court 5 wherein it was held that confiscation of vehicle used in transportation of the goods was not liable to confiscation automatically and that it could only be done if the vehicle was involved in any criminal activity in carrying the banned items. Similarly some nexus should be found, between the impounded goods and the owner of the vehicle to call for the confiscation order by the Customs Authorities.

9. It may be pointed out that both the authorities cited above have been taken care of by the learned Appellate Tribunal, which rightly came to the conclusion that the facts of reported authorities were not analogous to the facts of the case in appeal.

10. We have also considered the above aspect of the matter and find that all the legal formalities', such as issuance of show‑cause notice were fulfilled‑but nobody turned up to contest the same. However, the appellant was heard by the learned Appellate Tribunal and as such was provided full opportunity to show that he had no nexus or link with the confiscated goods qua the vehicle. The appellant was unable to de‑link himself from the package of narcotics goods and the ammunition, which were artfully concealed in the specially designed cavities in the bus for which there was nothing on record to show that those cavities were not prepared at a workshop under the supervision of the appellant and his co‑accused where they remained for more than a month till completion of the task. This clearly spelt out mens rea of the appellant qua the confiscated goods and the vehicle which was specially designed and fabricated in. order to transport the, goods of this nature. As such there is a strong evidence and convincing circumstances to show that the appellant being owner of the vehicle, though was not found inside the vehicle at the time of raid, but his agents i.e. driver and cleaner linked him by stating that the appellant had directed them to take the bus from Peshawar to Lahore with the understanding that he would receive the bus at the Railway Station, Lahore. This clearly linked the appellant with the nefarious and illegal transportation of drugs and ammunition apparently for its onward delivery in the other parts of the country. The orders passed by the Customs Authorities and finally by the learned' Appellate Tribunal would call for no interference by this Court being sound in law and facts. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal in limine.

11. A copy of this order shall be sent to the learned Appellate Tribunal in view of provisions contained in section 196(5) of & Customs Act, 1969. Q.M.H./M.A.K./N‑158/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.