' AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.---Through this application, applicant seeks release of vehicle viz Bus Isuzu Bus bearing registration No,MLC-9255 Engine No,51735 Chassis No,MT-112-3-3000198 Model 2004 involved in Crime No,2 of 2009 of Police Station ANF Hyderabad under section 9-C Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.
2. Facts leading to this revision are that on 9-2-2009 accused Naqib-ur-Rehman was apprehended by the ANF police along with the aforesaid. Bus and 135.470 Kilograms charas and '125C Kilograms of opium was also recovered from the secret cavity of the Bus. Such F.I.R. Was registered against accused Naqib ur Rehman under section 9-C CNS Act and the vehicle was taken into custody by the police.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that applicant is owner of the vehicle in question which he had purchased from one Muhammad Ramzan and same was transferred by said Muhammad Ramzan in his name by virtue of certificate issued by the Motor Registration Authority Multan. He further argued that the applicant gave the vehicle to accused Naqib-ur-Rehman, who was arrested by the ANF officials, however, the applicant has no knowledge about the trafficking of charas opium in the said Bus. He prayed for release of the vehicle on superdari basis. He has relied upon case of Allah Ditta v. The State (2010 SCM R 1181) and Askari Leasing Limited through Branch Manager v. The State(sic)).
4. On the other hand, learned Special Prosecutor ANF vehemently opposed the grant of application on the ground that one agreement was recovered from the vehicle in question, which shows that the present applicant has sold out the' Bus to accused Naqib ur Rehman and this incident took place in the year 2009, at that time vehicle was in the name of Muhammad Ramzan and on 26-3- 2011 same was transferred in the name of applicant, therefore, applicant is not entitled for release of the vehicle and his application merits no consideration.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the material available on record. It appears that 135.470 K. G, charas and 1250 kilograms opium was recovered from the secret cavity of the vehicle in question. The Bus driver was Naqib Rehman, who had pleaded his guilt before the learned trial court and therefore, was convicted and sentenced to suffer R.I, for 14 years. Record reveals that registration papers of the vehicle in question, at the time of recovery of narcotic substance there from, were in the name of Muhammad Ramzan but the agreement produced by the learned Special Prosecutor dated 3-7-2008 shows that the vehicle in question was purchased by the present applicant, who then sold out the same to accused Naqib-ur-Rehman on the basis of installments. Neither applicant claimed the ownership of the vehicle in question during investigation or trial nor made any application before the I.O. Or the learned trial court for release of the vehicle on superdari basis. As per agreement recovered from the Bus, Muhamamd Ramzan previous owner of the Bus sold out the Bus to the applicant, who sold out the same to accused Naqib ur Rehman. The incident took place in the year 2009 and after lapse of more than two years, the applicant got transferred the vehicle in his name and sought its release. It is an admitted position that the vehicle in question was used in transportation of narcotic substance and that has not been denied by the present applicant.
6. In case of Allah Ditta (supra), it was held that proviso of section 74 of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 did not prohibit the release of the vehicle involved in trafficking of narcotics to its owner, who was not connected in any way with the commission of crime or the accused and was unaware that his vehicle was being used for the crime. In this case, car was leased out to a firm of "Rent a Car" which had rented it out to the accused. In the present case, the Bus was sold out by the applicant to the accused who used it in transportation of narcotic substance and such agreement showing sale of vehicle to accused was recovered from the vehicle.
7. In case of Askari Leasing Limited (supra), the vehicle in question was leased out by the company to the accused, from which narcotic was recovered by the police and there was no allegation that petitioner company was aware of the said user of vehicle leased out by it to the accused as a financial institution, therefore, vehicle was ordered to be released to the company on superdari basis but in the present case the agreement recovered from the vehicle shows that it was sold out to the accused by the applicant, therefore, this case is not helpful to the applicant.
8. For the foregoing reasons, we find that the impugned order passed by the learned trial court does not suffer from any illegality and same requires no interference by this Court. The revision application merits no consideration and same is hereby dismissed.
' This Criminal Revision Application was dismissed by our short order passed in the court today and these are the reasons thereof.