This is a revision application under Article 203-DD of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the order dated 5-10-1991 passed by the learned S.D.M. Shikarpur, and order dated 21-12-1991 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, whereby the petitioner's application for restoration of the car, registration No.292-625, Karachi, to him.
2. Brief facts of the case, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the car belongs to the petitioner, who is a resident of Kandhkot, District Jacobabad. His car was apprehended near Morro District Shikarpur carrying 320 litres of locally manufactured liquor, alongwith his driver, Imamdin and one Shahban who is stated to have hired the said car. Both the accused are facing trial in the Court of learned S.D.M. Shikarpur under Articles 3 and 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the said Order).
3. The petitioner filed an application before the learned 5. U.M., for delivering the car to him on Supardaginama. The said application was rejected by the learned S.D.M. Vide his order dated 5-10- 1991. A revision application was filed before the learned Sessions Judge, Shikarpur which was also dismissed. Now, the, petitioner has chosen to file the above revision under Article 203-DD of the Constitution, whereby he has impugned both the orders as mentioned in the opening paragraph of his petition.
4. The only contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the car belongs to the petitioner and as such he is entitled to the delivery of the said car to him. On question by the Court whether the car was being used as taxi or for personal use. He did not come out with a definite reply. He, however, submitted that the car was hired by the co-accused Shahban.
5. Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, learned Additional .Advocate-General, Sindh, vehemently opposes the petition and submits that it is immaterial that the petitioner is the owner of the car (taxi) or not it--- s the vehicle found engaged in transporting the contraband `shall be liable to confiscation as provided under Article 14 of the said Order. He further submitted that even if the accused carrying the contraband are acquitted on some ground but the factum of the recovery of the contraband is proved from the vehicle, the vehicle may be confiscated despite the acquittal of the accused. --
6. As I read the provision of Article 14 of the said Order; it seems to me that the `real persons' are physically apprehended for the commission of the offence and put into jail and ultimately sentenced according to law, if found guilty. Similarly, the vehicle used in the commission of the offence is liable to A be detained during the trial until the final decision is pronounced and if the recovery is established from the vehicle it shall be liable to Confiscation. So, under Article 14 of the said Order it is not only the person(s) who is/are found in possession of the contraband but the vehicle by means of which the said contraband was being transported is equally liable to confiscation as involved in the commission of the offence.
7. The contention of the learned counsel that the car may be misused by the police is no' more available to him as the learned Sessions Judge ordered that `the case property (car) will remain in the custody of the Court as it is liable to be confiscation (sic) at the end of the trial'.
8. I have read both the orders impugned before me they are supported by law and cogent reasons.
I, therefore, find no justification in interfering with the above said order and the revision petition is dismissed.
M.B.A./701/FSC 1