2007 PLP 1712 (YLR)

SALIM KHAN, J.

Vide F.I.R. No.339 dated 22-5-2006 of Police Station Hayatabad, Peshawar, it was reported that 50 kilograms Charas was recovered from Vehicle No.8156 Suzuki Alto. The petitioner Jan Agha submitted application to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar for return of the vehicle to him till the decision of the case. The petition was dismissed on 23-8-2006. Hence this Criminal Revision. I heard arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate-General, and I perused the record.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he purchased the vehicle in question from Qadarman and the bargain receipt was in the name of the present petitioner. He further contended that the open Transfer Letter and the Registration Book in the name of Atta Muhammad was also available with the petitioner, and there was no rival claimant of the vehicle in question. He referred to section 32 of the Control of Narcotic 'Substances Act, 1997, and stated that the petitioner will produce the vehicle in question for that stage if the custody is temporarily given to him. The learned counsel explained the provisions of section 74 of the said Act and submitted that the innocent owner having no knowledge of the crime was not included for the purpose of the said section of law. He relied on 2005 YLR 2864, 2002 PCr.LJ 97, 2004 PCr.LJ 2060 and PLD 2006 Lahore 167.

3. The learned Assistant Advocate-General contended that huge quantity of 50 kilograms Charas was recovered from the vehicle in question which was driven by Rafiullah accused at the time of occurrence, though the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had handed over the vehicle to Muhammad Asif driver on payment of Rs.6,000 per month as' rent. It was further contended that the petitioner was not the owner of the vehicle as neither the Transfer Letter nor the Registration Book was in his name, and the lack of knowledge of the owner of the vehicle would be proved at the time of trial. It was further argued by the learned A.A.-G. that no loss would occur to the petitioner if he had legally handed over the vehicle to Muhammad Asif driver and the latter named had misused the same. He relied on 2003 SCMR 246.

4. The vehicle in question is not registered in the name of the present petitioner and the Transfer Letter is not either in his name or in the name of Qadarman. The copy of the Transfer Letter does not contain the name of the original owner or the transferee and it is yet to be proved that it was a genuine document. It will be seen at the time of trial whether the present petitioner was not in the knowledge of the crime and whether he was not responsible for properly looking after his vehicle to avoid its use in crime. The petitioner may have a civil case against Muhammad Asif, but the vehicle is yet required for the purposes of trial and the provisions of section 32 of C.N.S.A. I do not find any good ground for return of the vehicle to the present petitioner at this stage. I, therefore, dismiss the present criminal revision. H.B.T./84/P Petition dismissed.