Section 9 (c), 32 (2), provisions and section 33 were not put on notice of the appellant / owner of the drunk vehicle as to why the vehicle was not seized and vice versa. 2) was conditioned under Section 32 of the Contra; Narcotic Sub Maintenance Act, 1997 that no one shall be liable to confiscate any vehicle, vessel or other equipment, unless it is proved that its owner knows That the crime is being committed or is being committed. In fact, knowledge was a point and the decision was to be made according to law as usual by giving notice to the owner and it was not necessary that the accused had no attempt to ascertain the question and determine whether the appeal. The defendant knew that the crime was to be committed or was to be committed, the trial court had not seen the required hearing before all these proceedings and the order to confiscate the vehicles was required under section 32 or 33 of the Narcotic Substances Act 1997 I was not approved. In the course of the trial and observation, an unlawful order of confiscation of the vehicle was fixed, in view of the illegal proceedings by the trial court, and the trial court was ordered to proceed in accordance with the law and judgment in the case. Shipped.
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2010
