| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2012 SLG 1392 2012 SLD 1392 2012 SCMR 167 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Cr.R.P. No. 11-L of 2009 in Cr. P. No. 337-L of 2008 and Cr. R.P. No. 16-L of 2009 in J.P. 226 of 2008, decision dated: 9-08-2011
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J., TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI AND MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Cr.R.P. No. 11-L of 2009 in Cr. P. No. 337-L of 2008 and Cr. R.P. No. 16-L of 2009 in J.P. 226 of 2008, decision dated: 9-08-2011
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J., TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI AND MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
THE STATE and another
VS
Rana NISAR AHMAD and another
Law:
Section:
(a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)-------S. 39---Forfeiture of assets---Limitation---Though no time period has been prescribed under S.39 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, still law always insists initiation of application for forfeiture of assets within a reasonable time---Supreme Court assessed reasonable time to be between 90 to 120 days. (b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----S. 39---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 188---Review of Supreme Court --- Assets purchased from drug money---Determination---Forfeiture of assets---Application for forfeiture of assets of accused (since dead) was filed about three years after the was announced by Trial Court and application was dismissed as the assets were not proved by prosecution to have been purchased by drug money---Supreme Court declined to interfere in the passed by High Court---Validity---State was supposed to remain vigilant in respect of proceedings of the court and it should also know the law on the subject---If prosecution was of the opinion that properties had been acquired by the convict (since dead) out of drug money same should have furnished at least prima facie evidence about it at the relevant time with promptitude but that had not been done and in the meanwhile matter had come before Supreme Court and under review was passed---Supreme Court declined to interfere in the passed by it earlier---Review was dismissed. A.D. Naseem, Advocate Supreme Court and Faiz-ur-Rehman, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in Cr. R.P. No. 11-L of 2009). Dr. A. Basit, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in Cr. R. P. No.16-L of 2009). Dr. A. Basit, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in Cr. R.P. No. 11-L of 2009). Date of hearing: 9th August, 2011. ORDER IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.---This petition (Cr. R. P. No.11-L of 2009) has been instituted on behalf of the State and in pursuance whereof, following part of the judgment under review dated 6-5-2009 has been questioned:-- "Now coming to the question of forfeiture of assets, we would like to observe that no material was placed on record to show as to when the assets of the petitioner sought to be…
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