2006 PLP 1732 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD RAFIQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1732 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAFIQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1732 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 1732 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ijaz Ahmad Chaudhry, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1732 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD RAFIQ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tariq Zulfiqar Ahmad Chaudhary for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 516-A & 439
Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c) & 32
Criminal revision had been filed against order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, through which application of petitioner for superdari of car was rejected
Under provisions of S.32 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, a car could only be confiscated if it was found that owner of the car was also involved in commission of offence
Petitioner, in the present case was not an accused and there was no evidence against him to connect him with the crime
Petitioner had produced registration book which was in his name
Car in question was driven by main accused and in absence of any evidence against the petitioner, who had been found innocent in the case, prima facie he had succeeded in making out a case for interim custody of the car being its owner
Revision petition was accepted with direction to the Trial Court to pass order for superdari of car in question in favour of petitioner subject to deposit of reasonable surety bond. Aamir Khalil v. Government of Pakistan through Director-General, A.N.F., Rawalpindi and 5 others PLD 2004 Pesh.251 ref. Muhammad Rafique Rajput for the State.
Judgment & Decree
IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--This Criminal revision has been filed against the order darted 16-3-2005 passed A by Additional Sessions Judge, Sahiwal through which application for superdari moved by the petitioner was rejected.
2. Facts of the case are that F.I.R. No.110, dated 15-4-2004 was registered under section 9(c) C.N.S.A., 1997 at Police Station, Yousaf Wala at the instance of Shafqat Ali, A.S.-I. Allegation in the F.I.R. is that 2 K.Gs. of Charas was recovered from the said car, which was being driven by Allah Yar.
3. It is contended that the petitioner is owner of the car and had no knowledge that the said articles were kept in the said car. It is also contended that the learned trial Court has rejected the application merely on the ground that the car could be confiscated under section 32 of the C.N.S.A., 1997. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Aamir Khalil v. Government of Pakistan through Director-General, A.N.F., Rawalpindi and 5 others (PLD 2004 Peshawar 251) in support of his contention and prays for supardari of the said car till the disposal of the main case.
4. Learned State Counsel has opposed the petition on vague grounds.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Under the relevant provisions, a car only be confiscated if it is found that the owner of the car is also involved in the commission of the offence. In the present case, the petitioner is not an accused and there is no evidence against the petitioner to connect him with the crime. The petitioner has produced registration book which is in his name. The car was being driven by Allah Yar, who is the main accused and in the absence of any evidence against the petitioner, who has been found innocent in the case, prima facie, he has succeeded in making out a case for interim custody of the car being owner. This petition is accepted and the learned trial Court is directed to pass an order for superdari of the said car n favour of the petitioner subject to deposit of reasonable surety bond to his satisfaction after verifying the documents from the relevant, quarters, till the final disposal of the main case. H.B.T./M-195/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision accepted.