Law: Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)

Section: 9(c) ,32

Law: Limitation Act (IX of 1908)

Section: First Sched., Art. 155

(a)    Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)---

----Ss. 9(c) & 32---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), First Sched., Art. 155--Confiscation and release of vehicle involved in narcotic case---Appeal, filing of--Limitation---Prosecution case was that 144-kilograms charas was recovered from the secret cavity of truck driven by the accused---Accused was acquitted from the case but the vehicle was ordered to be confiscated in favour of the State---Validity---In the present appeal, the appellant besides challenging the impugned judgment dated 31.07.2023 with regard to the knowledge of the owner of the vehicle in question also challenged the confiscation of vehicle in by the Trial Court---Instant appeal had been filed on 02.01.2024---Appeal under S.48 of the Act, 1997, against the finding of the Special Court was required to be filed within 60 days from the date of judgment/order in terms of Article 155 of the Limitation Act, 1908---Instant appeal was barred by more than three months---In the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, the appellant had taken the grounds for condonation of delay that he being lawful owner of the vehicle had handed over the same to the acquitted accused for plying the same on rent that due to migration of accused, appellant remained unaware about his vehicle as well as registration of F.I.R; that, for such reasons appellant could not claim the title of the vehicle in question during the trial of the case or could file the appeal on time---In support of his said contentions neither any agreement with the accused for plying the vehicle in question on rent had been filed nor any supporting documents in that respect had been mentioned in the application---Moreover, no affidavit of the said accused was annexed along with the application, therefore, the appellant had failed to substantiate his contention with regard to condonation of delay in filing of the appeal---Furthermore each day's delay had been sufficiently explained by the appellant---Appeal being barred by limitation was dismissed.

2016 YLR 1326; 2022 PCr.LJ 666; 2008 MLD 1603; 2013 YLR 1626 and 2024 PCr.LJ 385 ref.