1. 'An application was moved by the petitioner for return of a Car No,IDG-4961 Suzuki Mehran before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi but the said application was declined to be acceded and, therefore, the petitioner approached this Court. The background of this case has very important and glaring aspects which require to be conveyed to the Ministry of Interior as well as to the Cabinet Division, Islamabad on account of the facts which are being reproduced herein below:-- "On secret information the Anti-Narcotics Force, Rawalpindi was on guard in respect of a car alleged to be carrying heroin. This car was escorted by the officials of A.N.F. On 18-1-1995 bearing No,IDS-4242 Suzuki Alto with three passengers namely Abdul Majeed, his wife Mrs. Tahira and one Shaukat Ali. They were taken to the police station. A Murasila was sent to police station which was incorporated into F.I.R. No,7, dated 18-1-1995 registered at 10-35 hours by one Nasir Aziz. The accused were taken to the Regional Director Mr. Saood Ahmad by Nasir Aziz alongwith other officials of A.N.F. Which included Umar Hayat Javed who carried investigation after initial investigation was completed by Nasir Aziz. The most interesting words in the F.I.R. At the end of it runs as follows:-- {{URDU TEXT}} ' These lines are worth mentioning as a sign of appreciation for the said Police Officer who is so much expert about the psyche of such persons although he was not psychologist. Surprisingly enough all the three persons were released on the same day. Umar Hayat Javed stated the background of their release which can be summarised as under:-- ' The three persons named certain officers regarding their character and their previous record to show that they were innocent and someone had planted heroin in the bumper of that car. Two names which appear out of the statement of Umar Hayat Javed are Khalid Habib, General Manager and Mr. Masood, Chairman, Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation. Interestingly enough their statements were not recorded but only they were contacted on telephone and on account of their conversation with Umar Hayat Javed they were believed and those three accused were allowed to go after taking into consideration several other factors and circumstances of the case and particularly on account of this reason that they have not been arrested before they were allowed to go.
2. ' The Investigating Officer now proceeded with his investigation from another angle by means of which he could apprehend the real culprits in this case. He had succeeded to trace the mobile telephone number whose subscriber was found to be one Malik Safdar. Malik Safdar disclosed that he had handed over his mobile to one Haji Ghulam Hussain. Haji Ghulam Hussain disclosed to the Investigating Officer that on the day of incident the said mobile telephone was with one Mansoor Mazhar Ali who belonged to Ministry of Petroleum at the post of a Director. All these three Government Officers are also connected with one Multi Professional Housing Society, Islamabad which is not official sponsored but several high Officers are the members of the society and the said Mansoor Mazhar Ali, Director, Ministry of Petroleum is also the General Secretary of that society.
3. Mr. Masood, Chairman, P.T.C. Had been the President of the society but on the day of incident Mr. Khalid Habib, General Manager, P.T.C. Was stated to be the President of the Society.
4. ' Nasir Aziz, Investigating Officer is stated to have recorded the statement of one Mr. Masood which also contains the facts relating to their previous assignment and attachment with the said society.
5. The challan has been submitted on 26-10-1995 i,e, after about nine months and Umar Hayat Javed has no explanation to this reality that he did not submit interim charge-sheet as was necessary to be filed within 17 days under proviso to section 173, Cr.P.C. And, therefore, this delay of filing the charge-sheet/final challan after about nine months should not be ignored by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and he would have sent this report to the higher authorities for violation of the said provision of law before submitting the challan. It has been disclosed by Umar Hayat Javed that in the said challan Haji Ghulam Hussain is the main accused because the mobile telephone used in this transaction was recovered from his custody as Mansoor Mazhar Ali, Director, Ministry of Petroleum had denied the statement of Haji Ghulam Hussain, therefore, his name was put in Column No,2 of the interim charge-sheet. Although more than nine months have passed but final challan has not been submitted. The total weight of heroin is stated to be only 100 grams for which these officials have taken nine months to complete the investigation till date and, therefore, it cannot be said that certain high hands are involved in this case.
6. ' The learned Deputy Director (Law) Mr. Zulfiqar Ahmad Piracha has referred to section 35-C of Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930 which reads as under:- "When any person found guilty of an offence punishable under Chapter III is sentenced to imprisonment for life, the Court shall also order that his assets shall stand forfeited to the Federal Government and impose on him a sentence of fine which shall not be less than twice the value of the assets."
7. ' Although English is not our mother tongue yet, the language of this section is so unambiguous that it does not warrant any official to confiscate any vehicle before any person is found guilty and particularly when section 2 of the said Act defines the word "assets" which include movable and immovable property and other things, and therefore, it is not known whether these officials had taken the charge of house articles in the houses owned by the petitioner by attaching those house with property or not, or they are interested to keep tne car only for their personal use. The learned Deputy Director (Law) Stresses that they can keep the things in their custody which are included in the definition of word "property", but at this stage he could not show the definition of property. The learned Deputy Director (Law) has taken a stand that for the return of that vehicle, first an application was moved by accused Ghulam Hussain. The-application was sent for report and the report was given by Umar Hayat Javed and the said report is found on the back page of the said application. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the said application was withdrawn.
8. The learned Deputy Director (Law) has also drawn my attention to another application submitted by one Muhammad Mahfooz Khan on 1-11-1995 which was dismissed due to non-prosecution. On 12-11-1995 against that dismissal an application was submitted before the learned Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi on 13-11-1995 and the learned Sessions Judge was also pleased to turn down tnat application in his detailed order, dated 4-1-1996 wherein he stated:-- "Since the vehicle has been recovered from the possession of Ghulam Hussain who is an accused in the abovementioned case, I am not inclined to hand over this vehicle to Muhammad Mahfooz, petitioner. Consequently the application is hereby turned down."
9. Another application was also dismissed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Rawalpindi on 8- 5-1996. The learned counsel for the petitioner has now produced income-tax payment receipt which shows that tax amounting to Rs,14,218 has been paid by Muhammad Mahfooz Khan in respect of that Car bearing Chassis No,433675. The stamp on the receipt is dated 30-6-1996 and on the basis of this receipt the petitioner claims to be the owner of the said car. This is the new improvement in the case which was not before the learned Additional Session Judge, Rawalpindi.
10. According to the prosecution, this is afterthought improvement which was planted only to get the custody of that car but notwithstanding any such stand, there is no such law according to which the vehicles could be kept by the Courts if the owners of the vehicles or the persons from whom the vehicles were recovered submit surety equivalent to the value of the vehicle. However, instead of passing any order directly, I direct the learned Trial Court to take into consideration all these factors particularly in the light of the definition of property, assets or any other thing and more particularly by taking into consideration whether he could decide the case by treating the charge-sheet under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 or under section 14 of the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930 when both relate to the same offence and it is established principal that the latest law has to be prevailed as was laid down in PLD 1980 Quetta 71 . Apparently the accused can be tried only under Article 3/4 and not under section 14. This application must be decided within ten days from today. Moreover, the learned Additional Sessions Judge is also required to send the attested copies of the case file to this Court for its perusal so that it could be seen what documents have been submitted by the Investigating Officer in the Court. These documents should reach this Court within ten days. The learned counsel for the petitioner should move a fresh application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge till tomorrow if so advised so that there should be no delay in disposal of the said application. With these instructions this application is disposed of with the shocking feelings that the officials of A.N.F. Are keeping a car from which nothing was recovered while the car from which heroin was recovered has been released. Similarly an accused is being kept in custody on the basis of a mobile telephone without any recovery of heroin from him on the presumption that he had planted heroin in the released car but the main three accused were not even shown in Column No,2 of the challan which is still interim and not final even after nine months!! The office is required to put the case file before this Court when the documents are received from the trial Court. The office is also required to send a copy of this order to the Ministry of Interior as well as to the Cabinet Division, Islamabad for their information so that they must know the working of the present Investigating Officer as well as the nature of case.