Find a Lawyer

JAVED HAYAT versus STATE

In the present case, two persons claimed to be joint owners of the seized vehicle and their claim was on the basis of the seized vehicle sections 74, 48, 2 (1), 20, 21, 22, 23, 26 and 32. There was no contradiction in the book of registration regarding the seizure of the seized vehicle unless the owner of the vehicle was an accused in the relevant criminal case and nothing in his possession in the said case. Was found. The investigative record of the relevant case so far shows that the owners knew that the accused would use his vehicle to commit any drug-related crime, implying that the person claiming the law was responsible. Will not be allowed to do so. In this case the narcotic substance recovered from the accused person was allegedly recovered from his physical possession (hidden by the accused in a plastic bandage around his waist) and his shirt. Was also not obtained from a secret chamber, cavity or compartment, etc., which he allegedly was driving by the accused, in which case, after the recovery, he could not be legally arrested by the concerned officer. ? The accused was allegedly not being used for transportation of drugs seized from the physical possession of the vehicle and, in fact, according to the prosecution's case, the vehicle was taken into custody only by the accused person. Was being used. The relevant vehicle was not only unnecessary but was also unnecessary under the Bar of Control Narcotic Substances Substances Act under 1997 under under section 74 of the said Act and, therefore, was applicable to the present case and the trial court Pakistan, top advocate family court from Sakardu lawyer