Home Maxims & Terms Freezing and forfeiture of assets meaning in Urdu
Legal Term Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Freezing and forfeiture of assets

Freezing and forfeiture of assets legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)

2020 YLR 2636 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
S. 19Forfeiture of assetsPre-condition

If accused of offence punishable under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, is sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding three years only then Court can order that his assets derivable from trafficking in narcotics substances be forfeited.

2014 PCrLJ 267 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent
Ss. 9(c), 37 & 39Possessing and trafficking narcoticsFreezing and forfeiture of assets

Amount lying in the accounts of accused had been improperly seized and confiscated, as the Trial Court failed to inquire properly and adjudicate upon the application filed under S.37 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Trial Court failed to put substance of the allegation to accused; and did not give the accused a chance to show that amount lying in his account was not the proceed of the narcotics

Prima facie, duty of Anti-Narcotics Force Authorities was to collect material to connect the alleged account that was maintained by accused; and showing that same was the result of the proceed of the narcotics; and that he had no other means to earn or deposit the amount

Impugned order being not legal was set aside

Application filed by the Anti-Narcotics Force under S.37 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, would be treated as pending before the Special Judge concerned, who was directed to observe the legal formalities as provided under S.39 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and to decide the matter in accordance with law.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Freezing and forfeiture of assets", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124944342

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Freezing and forfeiture of assets"

SCMR 2018
Criminal Appeal No. 35-K of 2016, decided on 4th May, 2018.

2018 S C M R 1397

The STATE/ANTI-NARCOTICS FORCE — Appellant Versus PARVEZ HASSAN HARAVI and another — Respondents

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
YLR 2025
2024-January-29

2025 Y L R 1644

Naseeb Rawan — Petitioner Versus The State — Respondent

Court: Islamabad
PLD 2017
2016-June-8

P L D 2017 Sindh 140

THE STATE/ANTI NARCOTICS FORCE, MINISTRY OF INTERIOR NARCOTICS CONTROL through Deputy Director (Law), Karachi — Appellant Versus PARVEZ HASSAN HARAVI and another — Respondents

Court: High Court
PCRLJ 2013
2012-September-26

2013 P Cr

SHER BANO — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Narcotics, Islamabad and 4 others — Respondents

Court: Sindh
PCRLJ 2020
N/A

2020 P Cr

The STATE through Deputy Director (Assets) Regional Directorate Anti-Narcotics Force, Lahore — Appellant Versus ABDUL MAJEED BUTT and 3 others — Respondents

Court: Lahore
YLR 2020
Criminal Appeal No.667 of 2010, decided on 1st June, 2020.

2020 Y L R 2636

The STATE through Deputy Director (Law) — Petitioner Versus SARDAR MUHAMMAD alias SARDARA GUJJAR and others — Respondents

Court: Lahore
PCRLJ 2014
2013-September-26

2014 P Cr

ALI JAN and 2 others — Appellants Versus The STATE — Respondent

Court: Balochistan
PCRLJ 2009
2008-September-11

2009 P Cr

IMTIAZ JAWED — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Court: Karachi
SCMR 2020
Criminal Appeal No. 01-L of 2015, decided on 15th January, 2020.

2020 S C M R 454

TASNEEM JALAL — Appellant Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR ANF and others — Respondents

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
PCRLJ 2025
its own facts. The decision whether to grant or refuse bail, depends upon multiple factors, even if the alleged offence is hit by the prohibitory clause of section 497(1) Cr.P.C. All those factors can be considered collectively as well as in isolation so as to reach a just conclusion. The question of bail is directly linked to right of liberty of an individual, who, unless found guilty on conclusion of trial, has to be considered innocent. Therefore, a slightest dent, visible on tentative assessment of material available on record, in the prosecution's case, would entitle the accused to grant of bail, even if the offence alleged to have been committed is hit by the prohibitory clause. The prohibition on grant of bail in section 497(1) Cr.P.C. is not absolute, rather dependent on satisfaction of the Court to believe that reasonable grounds exists that the accused is connected with the commission of offence. No hard and fast rule can be laid down to regulate discretion of the Court relating to its satisfaction for grant/refusal of bail. The Court may take into account all the grounds collectively or any one of them in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and grant or refuse bail. In Manzoor's[17] case, the Supreme Court has laid down the golden principle relating to bail. In the referred case it was held that "It is to remember that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. There is no legal or moral compulsion to keep people in jail merely on the allegations that they have committed offences punishable with death or transportation, unless reasonable grounds appear to exist to disclose their complicity. The ultimate conviction and Incarceration of a guilty person can repair the wrong caused by a mistaken relief of interim bail granted to him, but no satisfactory reparation can be offered to an innocent man for his unjustified incarceration at any stage of the case albeit his acquittal in the long run

2025 P Cr

Barkat ullah — Petitioner Versus The State and another — Respondents

Court: Islamabad