2002 P Cr (PLP)

Date of hearing: 30th August, 2001. The petitioner herein whose vehicle has been used in the commission of a crime registered under sections, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 read with Articles 3/4 of the Prohibition. (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, vide. F. I. R. No. 112, dated 4‑5‑2001, Police Station Ghombat, District Kohat, when failed to get the custody of the vehicle bearing Registration No.RIF‑8278 from the lower forums, moved this Court for the same.

2. It was mainly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is absolutely nothing on the record to show that the vehicle in question has been used in the commission of the crime with the knowledge of the petitioner; that he is an owner of the vehicle; and that in the absence of any rival claimant he is entitled to the custody of the same.

3. The learned State counsel while appearing on behalf of the State contended that any' vehicle or conveyance used in the commission of the crime under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 is liable to confiscation provided it is proved that owner thereof knew that the vehicle was used for carrying the psychotropic substance.

4. A perusal of the record would indicate that so far there is nothing thereon to show that the vehicle was used in the commission of the crime with the knowledge of the petitioner. 'No doubt section 74 of the Act prohibits the grant of custody of a vehicle used in the import, export or transportation of narcotic substance to the accused or any of his associates or relatives or any private individual till the conclusion of the case but the application of this provision by no canons of interpretation can be extended to cover an owner who has no hand or involvement it the crime, as it cannot be construed independently of the provisions contained in section 32 of the Act which protects the right of the owner who has no conscious hand in the commission of the crime.

5. Apart from this, retention of vehicle in police custody for an indefinite period would also serve tics useful purpose.

6. A perusal of the documents placed on the file would prima‑facie show the petitioner to be the owner of the vehicle in question at least in IC the absence of any rival claimant.

7. As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, this petition is allowed I and the local police is directed to hand over the custody of the vehicle to the petitioner, if he furnishes a bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,65,0001D (Rupees one lac and sixty five thousand) with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Court who is to ensure that the sureties are men of means.

8. However, this order will not prejudice the right of a rival claimant, if any, with a better title. N.H.Q./428/P Petition allowed.