ABDUL HAMEED BALOCH, J.---This Criminal Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 15th January, 2019 ("impugned order") passed by the Special Judge CNS Gwadar ("trial court") whereby the application filed by the respondent under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 ("Cr.P.C.") for Superdari of Oil Tanker bearing Registration Nos. TUA-820 was accepted.
2. The necessary facts for disposal of the instant petition are that complainant Sobedar Muhanimad Javed lodged an FIR No.47/2016 with Pakistan Coast Guards, Pasni alleging therein that on 27th April, .2016 at Badook Road, Check Post an Oil Tanker was intercepted on suspicion. The drive told his name Sana Ullah while the person sitting on the read seat told his name Sajid. The Oil Tanker was searched, resultantly 45 bales of Charas weighing 900 kilograms were recovered from secret cavities of the said Oil Tanker. The said Oil Tanker was taken into custody as case property.
3. After submission of challan and full dressed trial the trial court vide impugned judgment acquitted the respondent of the charge, however no order was passed in respect of the case property i.e. Oil Tanker, as such after pronouncement of judgment in the main case the respondent filed an application under Section 516-A, Cr.P.C. before the trial court for superdari of the said Oil Tanker, which was accepted vide impugned order.
Hence this petition.
4. Heard. The record perused.
5. The perusal of record reveals that the Pakistan Coast Guard Pasni lodged an FIR No.3603/2016 against Sana Ullah and Sajid and on concluding of trial both of them were convicted by the trial court vide judgment dated 24.10.2017. Thereafter the respondent filed an application under Section 516-A, Cr.P.C. for release of Oil Tanker on superdari, which was accepted by the trial court vide impugned order. The record transpired that since passing of judgment dated A 24.10.2017 in the main case no claimant of the oil tanker came forward. The respondent has produced legal documents of the vehicle (oil tanker) which was verified by the trial court from Excise and Taxation Department Hub. The Act did not put embargo that such a vehicle shall not be released on superdari to the bona tide owner of the same. Section 32 of the Act being relevant is reproduced as under: S.32. Articles connected with narcotics.---(1) Whenever an offence has been committed which is punishable under this Act, the narcotics drug, psychotropic substance or controlled substance, materials, apparatus and utensils in respect of which, or by means of which, such offence has been committed shall be liable to confiscation;
(2) Any narcotic drug, psychotropic substance or controlled substance lawfully imported, transported, manufactured, possessed, or sold along with, or in addition to, any narcotics drug, psychotropic substance or controlled substance which is liable to confiscation under subsection (1) and the receptacles or packages, and the vehicles, vessels and other conveyance used in carrying such drugs and substances shall likewise be liable to confiscation; Provided that no vehicle, vessel or other conveyance shall be liable to confiscation unless it is proved that the owner thereof knew that the offence was being, or was to be, committed."
6. In view of the above provision the prosecution has to establish the knowledge of the owner of the vehicle in respect of using the vehicle for smuggling of contraband material. The Act does not prohibit the release of vehicle in trafficking of narcotics, when the owner in any way has no nexus with the commission of the crime or the accused and was unaware that this vehicle was being used for the crime.
7. For rendering this view, we are fortified from the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan on the case of Allah Ditta v. State 2010 SCMR 1181, wherein it has been held as under: "We have found that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was aware that his vehicle was used for the transportation of "Charas". The petitioner had produced documents before the courts that his car was leased to a Firm of 'Rent a Car', which had rented it out to the accused. In the absence of any rebuttal by the prosecution of these documents, we do not agree with the findings of the High Court that the same may have been fabricated. We have also noted that there is no rival claimant of the vehicle. In these circumstances, the petitioner was entitled to the temporary custody of the vehicle."
8. The prosecution case is totally silent either in respect of involvement/ knowledge of respondent towards the commission of the offence or usage of said vehicle in trafficking of the narcotics, as such keeping in view the principles of law of Superdari, when no other claimant has come forward to claim ownership of the same, and the respondent being in possession of valid documents, showing his undisputed ownership of the vehicle, is entitled for the custody of the same. We therefore are of the view that the order of the trial court being well reasoned needs no interference.
In view of above, the petition is dismissed on merits.