Case Details

Citation(s)
1962 SLG = 1962 SLD 2550 = 1962 PLD 11
Lahore High Court
  Criminal Revision No. 854 of 1960, decided on 3rd Nov ember 1961.
Presented By: Jamil Hussain Rizvi, J
Aftab Hussain for Petitioner.   Niaz Muhammad Siddiqi for
Respondent.  

SULEMAN-Petitioner  

VERSUS

  THE STATE-Respondent

Law:

Section:

Natural justice-Order affecting property-Not to be passed unless show-cause notice given-Opium Act (1 of 1878) Ss. 11, 12-Contraband opium transported in car-Confiscation of car without notice to car-owner-Bad in law-Court has discretion to confiscate or to impose fine in lieu-"Shall be liable to confiscation" does not mean `shall be confiscated."   Manghan Dass v. Rahim Bux and others A I R 1921 Pat. 232 ; Muhammad Keshab v. King Emperor A I R 1925 Cal. 1021 and In re: Chakrapany Chattiar A I R. 1942 Mad. 724 (2) rel.   Libab Gul v. State P L D 1959 Pesh. 108 dissented from.     JUDGMENT   Abdul Ham, Siddique Ahmad and Nadir Khan were tried under section 9 of the Opium Act, 1878, in the Court of Mr. Akhtar Ali Jattery, Magistrate 1st Class with section 30 powers, Rawal pindi, who convicted and sentenced all of them. The learned trial Magistrate also ordered that the Car No. Ifs. A. A. 9103 in which the accused were transporting non-excise opium be confiscated to the State. Suleman, the owner of the car challenged this order by means of a revision before the Sessions Judge Rawalpindi, but his revision petition was dismissed. He has now challenged this order by means of this revision.   2. This is not disputed that the car is the property of the petitioner. The order of confiscation has been passed without calling upon him to show-cause against confiscation. Sections 11 and 12 of the Opium Act which deal with confiscation are as follows: -   "11. In any case in which an offence under section 9 has been committed: -   the opium in respect of which any offence under the same section has beencommitted.   Where in the case of an offence under clause 2 (b) or (c) of the same section, the offender is transporting, importing or exporting any opium exceeding the quantity (if any) which he is permitted to transport, import or export, as the case may be, the whole of the opium which he is transporting, important or exporting.   Where, in the case of an offence under clause 3 (d) of the same section, theoffender has in possession any opium other than the opium in respect of which the offence has been…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register