' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.---This petition (Cr. R. P. No,11-L of 2009) has been instituted on behalf of the State and in pursuance whereof, following part of the judgment, under review dated 6-5-2009 has been questioned:-- "Now coming to the question o forfeiture of assets, we would like to observe that no material was placed on record to show as to when the assets of the petitioner sought to be forfeited had been acquired. It could well be said that the petitioner had acquired these assets by way of inheritance being a landed property situated in a colony check. The learned counsel for the State could not satisfy us as to how the assets of the petitioner could be said to be derivable or derived from the sale proceeds of the narcotics or that the same had been acquired during the period, the petitioner was allegedly involved in any narcotic related activities. In our view, the impugned judgment of the High Court is plainly correct to which no exception can be taken."
2. Learned counsel for the State emphasized that an application under section 39 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1997) was instituted on 8-1-2003 with the prayer that as Rana Nisar Ahmad (since dead) has been convicted more than three years on 5-10-2001, therefore, the properties acquired by him and transferred/mutated in the name of his wife and sons etc. Are liable to be forfeited as the same have been purchased out of drug money etc. It is to be noted that Rana Nisar Ahmad pending of his revision has passed away as it has been pointed out by Dr. A. Basit, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, who has produced in Court his death certificate.
3. We have examined the contents of the application, moved under section 39 of the Act, 1997, which was essentially filed after the lapse of a considerable time. Although there is no time period prescribed under section 39 of the Act, still the law always insists the initiation of such application within a reasonable time and in a number of authorities by this Court reasonable time has been assessed between 90 to 120 days. Be that as it may, there is no, prima facie, believable evidence that the properties acquired in the name of wife and sons etc. Of Rana Nisar Ahmad were through drug money. The trial Court had passed the judgment on 5-10-2001 and no prompt action was initiated by the State and a belated application was submitted on 8-1-2003. However, this Court in its judgment under review on having taken into consideration all the attending circumstances declined to maintain the judgments impugned before this Court to the extent of forfeiture of the properties of Rana Nisar Ahmad. We may observe here that it is always the duty of the State to remain vigilant in respect of proceedings of the Court and it should also know the law on the subject; if therefore the prosecution was of the opinion that the properties have been acquired by the late convict out of drug money, it should have furnished at least prima facie evidence about it at the relevant time with promptitude, but this as earlier stated has not been done and in the meanwhile matter has come before this Court when the order dated 6-5-2009 was passed, therefore, under these circumstances and keeping in view the attending circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that no interference is called for as far as judgment of this Court dated 6-5-2009 is concerned.
4. Resultantly, Cr.R.P. No,11-L of 2009, filed by the State against B the respondent, who is now dead, is dismissed. Similarly, Cr.R.P. No,16-L of 2009, filed on behalf of Rana Nisar Ahmad, being not maintainable on account of his death, the same is, therefore, dismissed.