1. ' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court. The petitioner submitted revision application praying for release of the truck involved in the offence committed by the accused persons who were convicted and the truck was confiscated. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the truck and was not prosecuted with the driver and cleaner who were charged under :Article 3/4, Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979.
2. ' Mr. Muhammad Munir Peracha, the learned A.S.C. Contended that the petitioner had sold the truck to Karim Dad who sold it to Malik Fayyaz and all transactions were en hire-purchase basis and further that he is a registered owner and entitled to recover instalments. The truck has changed hands twice and was involved in transporting narcotic of huge quantity for which the driver and the cleaner have been convicted. The Court therefore confiscated it under Article 15 which was just and proper.
3. ' The learned counsel contended that the proviso in Article 15 applies to Articles 15(1) and 15(2) and its applicability cannot be restricted to sub-clause (2) alone. On this assumption it was contended that no notice was given to the petitioner who was the owner of the truck and therefore the order of confiscation was illegal. Article 15 reads as follows:-- "15. Confiscation how ordered. ---(1) In any case involving anything liable to confiscation under this Order, the Court deciding the case may order such confiscation despite the acquittal of the person charged.
(2) When an offence under this Order has been committed but the offender is not known or cannot be found, or when anything liable to confiscation under this Order and not in the possession of any person cannot be satisfactorily accounted for, the case shall be inquired into and determined by the Collector or other Prohibition Officer Incharge of the District or any other Officer authorised by the Provincial Government in this behalf, who may order such confiscation: ' Provided that no such order shall be made until the expiration of fifteen days from the date of seizure of the things intended to be confiscated or without hearing the persons, if any, claiming any right thereto, and evidence, if any, which they produce in support of their claims."
4. A perusal of Article 15 will show that sub-clause (1) applies to the Court which has been empowered to pass order of confiscation of anything involved in the case liable to confiscation irrespective of the acquittal of the person charged with the offence. Sub-clause (2) does not apply to Court. In the circumstances specified therein, the Collector or Prohibition Officer incharge of the District or any Officer authorised by the Provincial Government may pass order for confiscation. The proviso imposes preconditions for exercise of power under sub-clause (2). Firstly, in such cases the officer empowered cannot pass order of confiscation before the expiry of 15 days from the date of seizure of the thing liable to be confiscated. Secondly, if any person appears and claims the said thing, then without hearing such person and affording him an opportunity to produce evidence, if any, in support of his claim, no order of confiscation can be passed. The words "no such order" in the proviso refer to the order contemplated to be passed under Article 15 (2). It has no reference to the order passed under Article 15 (1) by the Court.
5. ' The petition is dismissed.