2026 P Cr. L J 436

 2026 P Cr. L J 436

[Lahore]

Before Farooq Haider and Ali Zia Bajwa, JJ

MUHAMMAD RIAZ---Appellant

Versus

The STATE and another---Respondents

Criminal Appeal No. 9528 of 2024, decided on 19th December, 2024.

Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)---

----Ss. 9(c) & 32---Confiscation and release of vehicle in narcotic cases---

Transfer of ownership of vehicle after registration of FIR---Mala fides--

-Prosecution case was that 1013-grams heroin was recovered from the

car driven by accused---After trial conducted by the Trial Court,

accused was convicted while the motorcar in question was ordered to

be handed over to its original owner---Thereafter, the appellant moved

an application before the Trial Court for the release of the motorcar in

question claiming himself to be the real owner, which was declined---

Validity---It was alleged by the appellant that he was the real owner of

the motorcar in question, which was borne out from the relevant

record of the Excise and Taxation Department while there was no rival

claimant---Report was requisitioned from the Excise and Taxation

Department to provide the comprehensive record of the motorcar in

question, which had been filed by Motor Registering Authority---

Contents of the said report disclosed that initially the motorcar was

registered in the name of one MA on 27.11.2021 while the same was

transferred in the name of the present appellant on 05.04.2022---

Perusal of the record revealed that the motorcar in question was taken

into possession by the investigating agency on 02.03.2022---Said fact

was conceded by the appellant that themotorcar in question was

transferred in the name of the appellant after registration of the FIR---

Transfer of ownership of a vehicle seized in connection with a narcotic

case, after it has been declared case property, strongly suggests mala

fide intent---Such a transfer not only disregards the legal status of the

vehicle as evidence in a criminal case but also appears to be a

deliberate attempt to frustrate the judicial process---Said act raised

serious concerns about the bona fides of the parties involved, as it

undermined the integrity of the investigation and the preservation of

evidence---Therefore, the timing and circumstances of the ownership

transferred must be scrutinized, as it might have constituted an

intentional effort to circumvent the due process of law---Petition was

dismissed, accordingly. Amjad Ali Khan v. The State and others PLD 2020 SC 299 rel.

Muhammad Akhtar for Appellant.

Hammad Akbar Wallana Special Prosecutor ANF with Mehmood-ul-

Hassan, Assistant Director/Incharge Police Station ANF, Sialkot and

Muhammad Naeem, M.R.A.-III, Excise and Taxation Department,

Lahore for the State.

ORDER

Through the instant appeal filed under Section 48 of the Control of

Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (hereinafter CNSA 1997 ), the appellant

has assailed the vires of impugned order dated 15.12.2023, passed by

the Additional Sessions Judge/Judge Special Court constituted under

the CNSA 1997, Sialkot (hereinafter trial court ); whereby his

application seeking release of car Honda City bearing registration

No.AFV-079, Chassis No.NFBGM1543LR258480, Engine

No.L13Z17537341, (hereinafter the motorcar in question ) in his

favour, was dismissed.

2. Arguments heard and the record perused.

3. Perusal of the record available on the file reflects that on

02.03.2022 the motorcar in question was intercepted by the officials of

ANF and from possession of the accused/Bilal Akram, 1013 grams

contraband heroin was recovered. In this regard, case FIR No.8/2022,

dated 02.03.2022, offence under Section 9(c) of the CNSA 1997, was

registered with Police Station ANF Sialkot and the motorcar in

question was taken into possession by the Investigating Officer as case

property. Subsequently, the case was decided by the trial court vide

judgment dated 14.07.2023; whereby the accused was convicted while

the motorcar in question was ordered to be handed over to its original

owner. Thereafter the appellant moved an application before the trial

court for the release of the motorcar in question claiming himself to be

the real owner, which was declined.

4. The main thrust of the arguments of learned counsel for the

appellant is that the appellant is the real owner of the motorcar in

question, which is borne out from the relevant record of the Excise

and Taxation Department while there is no rival claimant.

5. To appreciate the contention of learned counsel for the appellant

on the last date of hearing viz. 12.12.2024, a report was requisitioned

from the Excise and Taxation Department to provide the

comprehensive record of the motorcar in question, which has been

filed by Motor Registering Authority-III, Lahore. Contents of the said

report disclose that initially the motorcar was registered in the name

of one Muhammad Anjum Saeed on 27.11.2021 while the same was transferred in the name of the present appellant on 05.04.2022. The

perusal of the record reveals that the motorcar in question was taken

into possession by the investigating agency on 02.03.2022. When

confronted learned counsel for the appellant frankly concedes that the

motorcar in question was transferred in the name of the appellant

after registration of the FIR.

6. The transfer of ownership of a vehicle seized in connection with a

narcotics case, after it has been declared case property, strongly

suggests mala fide intent. Such a transfer not only disregards the legal

status of the vehicle as evidence in a criminal case but also appears to

be a deliberate attempt to frustrate the judicial process. This act raises

serious concerns about the bona fides of the parties involved, as it

undermines the integrity of the investigation and the preservation of

evidence. Therefore, the timing and circumstances of the ownership

transfer must be scrutinized, as it may constitute an intentional effort

to circumvent the due process of law.

7. The Excise and Taxation Department bears a crucial

responsibility to uphold the law and must exercise due diligence to

prevent being complicit in any illegality, particularly in facilitating the

transfer of ownership of vehicles involved in criminal activities. When

a vehicle has been seized in connection with a crime and designated as

case property, its transfer of ownership is not only improper but also

undermines the judicial process. The concerned departments must

remain vigilant to ensure that their processes are not exploited to

legitimize such transactions, as doing so could inadvertently aid in

frustrating the course of justice. By strictly adhering to the legal

protocols and verifying the status of such vehicles, the concerned

departments can prevent their resources from being misused in a

manner that facilitates unlawful acts.

8. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, in Amjad Ali Khan

[1]

,

authoritatively addressed the question whether a vehicle seized as

case property in a criminal case under the CNSA, 1997, could be

transferred and registered in the name of a third party by the

authority under the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 (MVO), prior to

the conclusion of the trial and the final disposal or confiscation of the

vehicle by the court. It was ruled by the Supreme Court of Pakistan

that the transfer of ownership and registration of a vehicle seized as

case property in a criminal case is impermissible under the MVO. Such

transfers undermine the judicial process and interfere with the court s

authority over case property, as the legal title is effectively frozen until

the conclusion of the trial. The Supreme Court emphasized that

physical verification of vehicles is essential at every stage of registration, including subsequent transfers, to ensure lawful

ownership and possession.

9. Furthermore, in paragraph 16 of the Amjad Ali Khan supra, the

Supreme Court of Pakistan directed the Provincial Governments to

consider amending the MVO and its associated rules to prevent the

registration of vehicles involved in criminal activities. Furthermore, the

Supreme Court recommended that Provincial Governments and the

Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT) collaborate with the Motor

Registration Authority and the Police to develop an online verification

system for identifying vehicles implicated in crimes. It was also

suggested that, at the time of vehicle registration, the transferor or

transferee be required to obtain a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from

the Police or submit an affidavit affirming that the vehicle is not

involved in any criminal case. In this case, the registration of the

vehicle in favor of the appellant was unlawful as clear directions of the

Supreme Court have been disregarded by the Excise and Taxation

Department. Under Article 190 of the Constitution of The Islamic

Republic of Pakistan, 1973, every state functionary is constitutionally

bound to comply with the orders of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. In

the aforementioned facts and circumstances the matter is hereby

referred back to the Motor Registration Authority for corrective action

under the law.

10. To uphold the sanctity of the judicial process, the Excise and

Taxation authorities are hereby directed to refrain from transferring

the ownership of any vehicle implicated in a criminal case or classified

as case property. This direction is essential to preserve the

administration of justice and to prevent any tampering with or

compromise of crucial evidence. The authorities must exercise

stringent diligence, including a thorough verification of the vehicle s

status, and must mandate the submission of a NOC from the Police or

an affidavit affirming the vehicle s un-involvement in criminal

proceedings, before initiating any ownership transfer. The matter shall

be referred to the Secretary, Excise, Taxation, and Narcotics Control

Department, Government of Punjab, and the Provincial Police Officer,

Punjab to ensure strict compliance with the directions issued by the

Supreme Court in the case Amjad Ali Khan supra. It is hereby explicitly

made clear that any lapse or negligence in this regard shall not be

condoned in the future.

11. For the foregoing reasons, the instant appeal is squarely devoid

of any merits, which is accordingly dismissed. Copy of this order shall

be sent to the concerned authorities for due compliance.

JK/M-36/L Appeal dismissed. Amjad Ali Khan v. The State and others PLD 2020 SC 299