2014 PLP 932 (MLD)
FARMANULLAH — Petitioner Versus BASHIR and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2014 PLP 932 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | FARMANULLAH — Petitioner Versus BASHIR and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2014 PLP 932 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2014 PLP 932 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2014 PLP 932 (MLD) (FARMANULLAH — Petitioner Versus BASHIR and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Noor Alam Khan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss, 561-A & 517
Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.33
Confiscation of vehicle allegedly used in offence
Dismissal of application for custody of vehicle on 'Superdari'
Petition for quashing of order of dismissal
Nothing had been brought on the record to show that substance recovered from the vehicle in question was transported with the consent, connivance or complicity of the petitioner; or that contraband was kept in secret cavity of the vehicle
Retention of vehicle in Police custody would not be necessary for any purpose
Trial Court had to consider the title and registration of the vehicle in the name of the petitioner during trial as envisaged in S.33 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997
If the vehicle was required for production and exhibition in the court, that could be arranged by directing the petitioner to produce the same, if and when required
Allowing petition, vehicle was directed to be released to the petitioner on furnishing bonds in the sum of Rs.5,00,000, with sureties.
Judgment & Decree
YAHYA AFRIDI, J.
Farmanullah son of Gul Wali Shah has sought the jurisdiction of this Court under section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 ("Cr.P.C.") for quashment of the orders of the learned trial Court, whereby the application of the petitioner for the custody of the vehicle ("Vehicle") bearing Registration No.V:B:-865 Islamabad on 'superdari' taken into custody by the local Police under section 9 C.N.S.A., vide F.I.R. No. 288 dated 15-10-2010 in Police Station Khawaja was, District Charsadda, for having transported illicit substance.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that where there is nothing on the record to show that the narcotics in the vehicle was transported with the consent of the petitioner, therefore, he cannot be punished by denying its custody to him who happened to be its legitimate owner.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State argued that the petitioner is neither the lawful registered owner of the vehicle in question nor its last possessor therefore, his request for custody has rightly been declined by the forums below.
4. The valuable arguments of the learned counsel for the parties heard and the available record of the case thoroughly considered.
5. Lest this Court passes any finding on merit, which would surely prejudice the case of the parties during the trial, suffice it to state that so far nothing has been brought on the record to show that the substance recovered from the vehicle was transported with the consent, connivance or complicity of the petitioner or that the contraband were kept in secret cavity of the vehicle. When so, this Court does not think, retention of vehicle in Police custody would be necessary for any purpose notwithstanding it is a case property.
6. Needless to state that the trial Court has to consider the title and registration of the vehicle in the name of the petitioner during trial as envisaged in section 33 of the CNSA.
7. If the vehicle is required for production and exhibition in the Court, that can be arranged by directing the petitioner to produce the same, if and when required.
8. Accordingly to the reasons stated hereinabove, this petition is allowed and the vehicle is directed to be released to the petitioner, if he furnishes bonds in the sum of Rs.5,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Illaqa/Judicial Magistrate, who is to ensure that the sureties are local reliable and men of means. However, the petitioner shall produce the vehicle in the Court if and when required. HBT/75/P Petition allowed.