STATE/ANF THROUGH DEPUTY DIRECTOR (LAW) REGIONAL DIRECTORATE (ANTI-NARCOTIC FORCE, KARACHI versus MST. ISHARAT MOIN
Such property is suspected to have been obtained by the banning of such property after the issuance of a notice under Section 31 of the Smuggling Prevention Act 1977, issuing notice to a third party interested in such property. Non-release of notice / effect under section 31 of the Anti-Trafficking Act, 1977 was issued in connection with the property because it was allegedly purchased by the accused through the drug trafficking case proceedings. It was said that the property was pending in the trial court / the alleged buyer submitted the application before the trial court. Is. Claiming that he had purchased the property and a sub-lease was imposed in that regard, the trial court granted the respondents' request and allowed the property to be section 31 of the Anti-Drug Prevention Act, 1977 Was released by the Anti-Drug Force (Appellant), claiming the defendant. The defendant was a front-man and the only document to be entered was not a certificate of termination of the property status of the sub-lease. The factual record shows that the respondents purchased the property in 1994, while the subject property was issued in 1996 under section 31 of the Prevention of Trafficking Prevention Act 1977, according to which the court found the accused and Notices were issued to his associates, but no notice was presented to the respondents / alleged buyer because not only was it necessary to give notice to the defendant but also the third party was interested in the property as there was no notice on the defendant. Was taken, so he is to appear in the trial court
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013
