>  Carrporate Law   >  Superdari of vehicle

Superdari of vehicle

Vehicle involved in transferring Narcotic substances—Superdari of vehicle–
Judgements of Lahore High Court.

2022 PCrLJN 55
S. 32— Articles connected with narcotics—Scope—Prosecution assailed the release of vehicle which was used in transportation of narcotics to brother of convict—Validity—Since the respondent (brother) had shown to the Trial Court that he was the legal owner of the vehicle, its possession was rightly handed over to him after due verification—Respondent was although real brother of the convict but he had no knowledge of the commission of offence—Appeal was dismissed.

2021 YLR 429
S. 32—Article (Vehicle) connected with transporting narcotics—Scope—Prosecution assailed order passed by Judge Special Court (CNS) whereby its application under S.32 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, was dismissed and the vehicle was handed over to its owner/respondent—Section 32 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, clearly laid down that whenever an offence was committed which was punishable under the Act, the narcotic drugs, psychotropic substance or controlled substances, material, apparatus and utensils in respect of which or by means of which, such offence was committed shall be liable to confiscation, however, the confiscation could not be made unless and until it was proved that the owner thereof knew that the offence was being or was to be committed and the vehicle would be used for carrying such drugs and substances—Investigating Officer had not collected any evidence during investigation of the case that the respondent was in knowledge of the fact that the vehicle was to be used by the accused for carrying and transporting of the narcotic substances—Respondent could not be deprived of the custody of the vehicle in the absence of such evidence and the vehicle could not be ordered to be confiscated—Order passed by Judge Special Court (CNS) was in consonance with law and facts—Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

2020 PCrLJ 524
Ss. 32 & 27—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 516-A—Police Rules, 1934, Rr. 22.16 & 22.18—Articles connected with narcotics—Disposal of seized articles—Custody of property case—Scope—Specific procedure has been prescribed for disposal/destruction of case property which, if consists of narcotic drug, psychotropic substance or controlled substance constituting an offence under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 is liable to be confiscated and only the court is authorized for destruction of such case property—Police officer of the rank of Sub-Inspector or any other police officer duly authorized in that behalf by the Government can seize a property which has been used in the commission of an offence, but he has no power to dispose of the same—Police officer is obligated to deposit the same in court or with the officer in charge of a police station as described in the Police Rules, 1934—Rule 22.16 of Police Rules, 1934 provides that weapons, articles and property in connection with criminal cases recovered during the course of searches made in police investigation are to be entered in the store-room Register—Rule 22.18 of Police Rules, 1934 instructs that the officer in charge of the police station shall make suitable arrangements for its safe custody.

2019 PCrLJ 1341
Ss. 32 & 74—Trafficking of narcotic drugs—Articles connected with narcotics—Scope—Confiscation of vehicle—Appellant assailed order of Trial Court whereby it refused to release the vehicle involved in the narcotics case—Validity—Vehicle in question could not be termed as “case property” as narcotic (charas) was not recovered from the secret compartments of the vehicle in question—Appellant was neither an accused nor any material was available with the prosecution that his vehicle was used in the offence with his active knowledge—Even otherwise there was no other claimant of the vehicle in question—Appeal was allowed and Trial Court was directed to issue process for handing over the vehicle in question to its legitimate and registered owner after due verification.
S. 32—Articles connected with narcotics—Scope—Confiscation of vehicle—Vehicle can be seized under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 only in three situations, i.e. firstly, where it is carrying unlawful narcotics along with some lawful narcotics, secondly, where it is a part of the assets derived from narcotic offences and thirdly, where narcotics have been recovered from its secret chambers, cavities or compartments, etc.
S. 32—Articles connected with narcotics—Confiscation of vehicle—Release of vehicle—Burden of proof—Scope—Section 32 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 deals with the final confiscation or release of the vehicle to the owner, after conclusion of the trial, if he has proved that he has no knowledge about the offence, which has been committed in the vehicle—Not only that an innocent owner of the vehicle is entitled to the return of the vehicle but the burden has been placed on the prosecution to establish that the owner has the knowledge of his vehicle being used in the crime—Knowledge is to be proved by leading evidence and the Trial Court can form such opinion after having taken into consideration the facts of the case.

2016 YLR 1105
Ss. 48, 32 & 74—-Vehicle involved in transferring narcotic substances—Superdari of vehicle—Car allegedly containing narcotic substance of heavy quantity was apprehended by the Police—Application for supardari was dismissed—Applicant being the sole owner of car had a right of supardari for said car especially when after passage of 5-6 months there had been no progress in the case—Retention of car for an indefinite period would only deteriorate or damage the car—Absolute bar for temporarily returning the vehicle on supardari during the pendency of trial could not be justified—Prima facie it was established that applicant had no knowledge about existence of narcotic substances in his car—Court which can grant a final relief can also grant an interim relief—Since there was no material evidence which showed that the applicant knew about the narcotic substance, therefore, applicant was entitled for the supardari of his car on presenting of a surety bond and with an undertaking that the vehicle shall be produced in court as and when ordered—Appeal was allowed accordingly.

2016 PCrLJ 56
Ss. 32 & 33—Confiscation of articles connected with narcotics—Section 32 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, cast a duty upon the court that before passing an order for confiscation of a vehicle, to determine the fact that as to whether the owner of such vehicle was aware of the fact that offence was being, or was to be committed by way of such vehicle—Section 33 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, made it obligatory for the court to provide an opportunity to the person, who claimed the right in the said vehicle—Impugned judgment of the Trial Court, was clearly evident of the fact that none of these mandatory provisions were adhered by the Trial Court, while passing the order of confiscation of the vehicle in question—Not a slightest piece of evidence, was found establishing the factum of knowledge of accused (owner of vehicle) with regard to commission of offence—Impugned judgment of the Trial Court to the extent of owner of vehicle could not sustain—Allowing appeal judgment was set aside to the extent of confiscation of vehicle in question.

2014 PCrLJ 561
Ss. 9 & 32— Possessing and trafficking narcotics— Articles connected with narcotics—Taking of samples—Where wrappers, slabs, cakes, packets, boxes, containers, etc. were recovered, it was mandatory to take separate sample from every separate packet, wrapper, slab, box, container and cake to make it a ‘Representative Sample’ of narcotic substance recovered.

2014 PCrLJ 1344
Ss. 9(c), 32(2) & 48—Possessing and trafficking narcotics—Confiscation of vehicle—Car in question taken into custody on the allegation that same was being used by appellant/accused in the commission of crime, was confiscated in favour of State and its auction was also ordered—Said car was given to appellant in superdari by Special Court, but ignoring such aspect of the matter; and also violating the process of issuance of notice to the appellant/owner and to enquire into the matter, confiscation of the car was ordered by the Special Court—Impugned judgment to the extent of confiscation of car was nullity in the eye of law, and was not sustainable—To such extent impugned order was set aside, and matter was remanded to the Special Court with the direction, first to issue notice to the owner of car, and then to conduct a discrete inquiry, while maintaining superdari with the appellant; and thereafter pass an order with regard to disposal of car.

PLD 2009 Lahore 625
Ss. 516-A & 517—Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.381-A—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.22; 32, 33 & 74, Proviso—Temporary custody of vehicle—Car in question which allegedly was used in transportation of narcotics was stolen away by unknown thief—Said car before incident of theft was insured with appellant/Insurance Company—Trial Court dismissed the request for temporary custody of car by Insurance Company on two grounds; firstly that the company could dispose of the car after obtaining it on superdari and secondly the request of the company was barred by proviso to S.74 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Validity—Under proviso to S.74 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, vehicle used in transportation of narcotic drugs would not be given on custody to; (i) accused; (ii) an associate of accused; (iii) a relative of accused; and (iv) any private individual–Said provision of law did not stand in the way of the Insurance Company to make a request for custody of car because the company could not he termed or considered as an accused, or associate of accused, or a relative of accused or even a private individual—Contention of law officer that Insurance Company was a legal person was misconceived because legal person could not be equated with private individual–Insurance Company had paid the claim of registered owner thereof because of its theft—Registered owner of the car or ‘the Insurance Company had no concern with the crime committed by the drug-pusher who was caught red handed while transporting charas in the stolen car—By disallowing superdari of the car to the Insurance Company, the Trial Court had forced the company to stand in the dock along with the culprit without any fault on its part—Only object to discourage superdari of vehicle used in carrying narcotics, was to enable the Trial Court to confiscate such vehicles in terms of S.33 read with S.32 of Control of Narcotic Substances, Act, 1997—While deciding the request of appellant Insurance Company of the car in question, proviso to S.32 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 escaped notice of the Trial Court which had clearly laid down that no such vehicle would be liable to confiscation unless it was proved that owner thereof knew that the offence was likely to be committed through said vehicle—Such being not the position in the present case, impugned order of the Trial Court was set aside and the Trial Court was directed to hand over the vehicle to the appellant Insurance Company on superdari.

2007 MLD 1372
—S. 516-A—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c)/15, 74 & 32—Release of vehicle on Superdari—Validity—Trial Court while ordering interim release of the .vehicle to the respondent company had rightly observed that no evidence was available on record to show that the vehicle in question has been used in trafficking of narcotic substance allegedly recovered from the accused—-State (appellant) had even not been able to establish locus standi of the Anti-Narcotic Force Authorities to challenge ownership of the vehicle—Admittedly the vehicle was owned by the Leasing Company and there was no rival claimant—Section 74 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 read with its S. 32 did not create any absolute bar for the release of a vehicle—Owner of the vehicle was only required to prima facie established that he had no knowledge that the vehicle was being used for transporting narcotics—Impugned order was based upon solid reasons and did not suffer from any illegality calling for interference by High Court—Vehicle had rightly been given to respondent on superdari–Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

PLD 2006 Lahore 167
—Ss. 74, 48, 2(1), 20, 21, 22, 23, 26 & 32—Superdari of the seized vehicle—Two persons, in the present case, claimed to be joint owners of the seized vehicle and their claim was based in that regard upon a Registration Book which was not controverted—Nobody else had asked for superdari of the seized vehicle till date—Owners of the vehicle were not accused persons in the relevant criminal case and nothing had been recovered from their possession in the said case—Nothing was available on record of investigation of the relevant case so far showing that the owners had any knowledge that the accused person would use their vehicle for committing any offence relating to narcotics—Law would not allow putting the onus on such person claiming the vehicle, to prove their lack of knowledge in that regard—Narcotic substance recovered from the accused person in the case was allegedly recovered from his physical possession (concealed in a plastic belt fastened by accused around his waist under his shirt) and the same had not been recovered from any secret Chamber, cavity or compartment, etc. of the vehicle that he was statedly driving—Vehicle being driven by the accused, in circumstances, could not lawfully have been seized by the relevant officer upon recovery of narcotics from physical possession of that accused—Vehicle in question was not being used for transporting the recovered narcotics and as a matter of fact, according to the prosecution’s own case, the said vehicle was being used only for transporting the accused person—Seizure of the relevant vehicle was not only unnecessary but also unwarranted under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Bar contained in S.74 of the said Act was, thus, inapplicable to the present case and Trial Court was not justified in dismissing the application seeking superdari of the said vehicle by claimants
Ss. 2(1), 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 32 & 74—Superdari of seized vehicle—Analysis of Ss.2(1), 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 32 & 74 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Implied situations in the context of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 which may make permissible seizure of a vehicle or conveyance in a case of narcotics detailed—Vehicle used by an offender merely for going to or leaving the place of occurrence or a vehicle used for mere transportation of the accused person, under the general law, cannot be taken into possession by the police as case-property; there is no reason why the same principle may not be followed in cases of narcotics except those cases where the special situations apply and seizure of a vehicle is made permissible by the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997—Principles.

2006 YLR 1732
—Ss. 516-A & 439—Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Ss.9(c) & 32—Superdari of car—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.

Post a Comment