| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2023 SLG 79 2023 SLD 79 2023 PTD 174 |
Sindh High Court
C.P. No. D-2716 of 2020, decided on 5th October, 2020, Dates of hearing: 11th September and 25th September, 2020.
MUHAMMAD IQBAL KALHORO, JUSTICE, SHAMSUDDIN ABBASI, JUSTICE
Muhammad Akram Shaikh and Jam Asif Mehmood for Petitioner. Dr. Amjad H. Bokhari for
Respondent No.8. Mir Ali Nawaz Talpur, Special Prosecutor ANF.
C.P. No. D-2716 of 2020, decided on 5th October, 2020, Dates of hearing: 11th September and 25th September, 2020.
MUHAMMAD IQBAL KALHORO, JUSTICE, SHAMSUDDIN ABBASI, JUSTICE
Muhammad Akram Shaikh and Jam Asif Mehmood for Petitioner. Dr. Amjad H. Bokhari for
Respondent No.8. Mir Ali Nawaz Talpur, Special Prosecutor ANF.
AYESHA ZAFAR
VS
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF NARCOTICS CONTROL AND 7 OTHERS
Law: Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1977
Section: 31,32
Prevention of Smuggling Act (XII of 1977)-----Ss.31, 32—Notice to person holding property (house) suspected to be acquired by smuggling—Order of Special Judge—Scope—Petitioner questioned the proceedings pending before the Special Court in terms of an application filed under S. 31 of Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1977, by Anti-Narcotics Force for forfeiture of properties/assets of petitioner and persons involved in smuggling of narcotics in favour of Federal Government under S. 32 of Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1977—Contention of petitioner was that the original owner (accused) from whom she had purchased the property had been acquitted by the Supreme Court and his properties including the one in question was ordered to be restored to him—Validity—Two FIRs were registered against the accused, from one of which he was acquitted while in the other he was declared as a proclaimed offender and the case was consigned to dormant file against him—Acquittal of the accused in one of the FIRs was not likely to offset the fact that he was a fugitive from law—Petitioner’s association with the brother of accused, who had a worse history than him, was undeniable fact as she had remained his sister-in-law and had happened to be owner of the house at that time— Petitioner had come into possession of the house only as a result of a compromise in a suit filed by her against an associate of the accused— Taking note of the matter and proceeding to inquire it for the purposes Special Court had rightly sought evidence from the parties and its order did not seem to suffer from any illegality to warrant interference— Constitutional petition was dismissed. 2020 SCMR 300; PLD 1796 Lah. 580; 1997 SCMR 193; 2012 SCMR 167; PLD 2017 Sindh 140; PLD 2002 SC 572; 2002 SCMR 273; PLD 2006 Kar. 25; 2010 PCr.LJ 1980; PLD 2013 Kar. 190; 2016 PTD 2881; PLD 2001 Pesh. 65; 2001 PCr.LJ 669; 2006 SCMR 512 and PLD 2000 Quetta 19 ref. ORDER: MUHAMMAD IQBAL KALHORO, JUSTICE:---.--- Petitioner has questioned in this petition proceedings pending before Special Court No. II Karachi in terms of an application filed under section 31 of the Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1977 (PSA, 1977) by Anti-Narcotic Force…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492