ANF Forfeiture: Supreme Court Releases Purchasers’ Properties After Notice and Jurisdiction Errors

Independently written and published by Shahbaz Shah Legal Journal.

The Supreme Court of Pakistan has released the properties of purchasers caught in a long-running Anti-Narcotics Force forfeiture dispute, holding that the lower courts used a notice under the wrong law, overlooked the purchasers’ hearing rights and failed to examine their own statutory jurisdiction. The relief covers the properties purchased by the appellants in these appeals. Judgment, page 12

The detailed reasons explain the Court’s short order of 8 October 2026 in Bashir Ahmed Malik and the connected petitions. Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail wrote for a bench also comprising Justices Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Shahid Bilal Hassan. The petitions were converted into appeals and allowed. Judgment, page 1 Judgment, page 4

A 1995 restriction and a different judicial notice in 1998

The litigation began after Khalid Latif’s conviction in a narcotics case in the United Kingdom in 1991. In July 1995, an ANF Regional Director issued a notice restricting dealings in an Islamabad commercial property and a house, invoking section 6(4) and (5) of the Anti-Narcotics Force Ordinance, 1995. The ANF later obtained advice that the narcotics-forfeiture provisions were not attracted to these properties and instead initiated proceedings under the Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1977. Judgment, page 2

The distinction between those two legal routes became decisive. The Special Judge’s first notice under section 31 of the 1977 Act was issued on 7 September 1998. The lower forums nevertheless treated the ANF’s 24 July 1995 notice as the event that invalidated the purchasers’ subsequent transactions. Judgment, page 6 Judgment, page 7

Section 35 depends on a section 31 notice

Section 31 requires the Special Judge to consider the statutory basis for proceeding, record reasons and issue the prescribed show-cause notice to a person holding the suspected property. Section 35 then restricts transfer of property mentioned in that notice while the proceedings remain pending. The Supreme Court held that the restriction begins with the judicial notice under section 31. Judgment, page 5 Judgment, page 6

The 1995 ANF notice came from a different official under a different enactment. The ANF had not pursued forfeiture on that basis and had moved to the 1977 Act. The earlier notice therefore had no legal nexus with the later proceedings sufficient to turn it into a section 31 notice. Transactions could not be declared void under section 35 simply because they occurred after July 1995. Judgment, page 7

Most purchases preceded the actual section 31 notice. The judgment identifies the house as having been transferred first on 9 July 1998 and then to Nuzhat Akbar on 6 August 1998. When the September notice was issued, the original owner was no longer its owner in possession. The Court separately explained that its remaining grounds applied to every appellant, including those whose purchase dates required different treatment. Judgment, page 7 Judgment, page 8

Purchasers were entitled to be heard

The purchasers had not been parties to the first round of litigation, and the Court found no evidence that they knew of those proceedings. They later sought release of the house and commercial units, asserting purchases and possession. Their applications were rejected, and the Islamabad High Court maintained the adverse outcome in 2018. Judgment, page 4

There was a further procedural failure. In the earlier proceedings, Khalid Latif had stated on oath that he had sold parts of the commercial building to people running businesses there. Once that information came before the Special Judge, notices had to be issued to those claiming ownership and possession. The failure to hear them before forfeiture offended due process and the property protection in Article 24 of the Constitution. Judgment, page 8

The judgment connects the statutory notice requirement with the actual third-party interests on the record. A forfeiture proceeding could not proceed as though the original owner still held everything after the court had been informed of sales to others. Judgment, page 8 Judgment, page 9

The indivisible share required attention under section 34

The commercial plot was treated as indivisible under its allotment conditions. The purchasers’ interests also made the remaining portion attributable to Khalid Latif difficult to identify and separate. In that situation, the Court held that section 34 required the Special Judge to offer a fine equal to the relevant market value at the time of forfeiture in place of forfeiting the indivisible part. Judgment, page 9 Judgment, page 10

The judgment records that Khalid Latif had offered payment during the second round and that the ANF had responded about negotiation at present market value. The Court’s statement of the statutory option, however, referred to value at the time of forfeiture. It found that the lower forums’ failure to exercise section 34 jurisdiction had left an avoidable conflict with the purchasers’ rights. Judgment, page 10

Drug proceeds and smuggling forfeiture required the correct jurisdiction

The Court also identified a fundamental defect in the first forfeiture order. The Special Judge acting under the 1977 Act had found acquisition through drug proceeds, without a finding that the properties were acquired by smuggling within that Act. The Supreme Court held that he could not use that jurisdiction to make the forfeiture order he had made. Judgment, page 10

The judgment explains that drug-proceeds forfeiture requires proceedings before the competent Special Judge under the applicable narcotics law and the necessary proof. No such proceedings or order were established here. A foreign narcotics conviction did not itself supply the missing jurisdiction or establish that the foreign court had ordered forfeiture of these properties. Judgment, page 10 Judgment, page 11

Rectification and the precise relief

Section 40 allows the Special Judge or Special Appellate Court to rectify a mistake apparent on the face of the record. The Supreme Court stressed that such a mistake must be obvious without detailed investigation or argument. It treated the constitutional violations, wrong application of law and jurisdictional defects identified in this record as manifest errors that the lower forums had failed to correct. Judgment, page 11

Exercising appellate jurisdiction and Article 187, the Court amended the 2003 and 2008 judgments to the extent of the appellants’ purchased properties. It set aside the later 2010, 2014 and 2018 adverse orders and directed that those properties be defrozen and released. The decision supplies a focused reminder to examine the governing statute, the person issuing the notice, its date, existing ownership interests and the court’s forfeiture power before treating a transfer as void. Judgment, page 12

Sources and complete judgment

• Read the complete Supreme Court judgment.
• Download judgment PDF.
• Case particulars and searchable judgment summary.

The analysis is based on the complete judgment PDF supplied for publication. Authorities mentioned in the analysis are identified as applied or discussed in that judgment.

Frequently asked questions

Did the ANF’s 1995 notice make later sales void under section 35?

No. The Court held that section 35 of the Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1977 was triggered by a Special Judge’s notice under section 31. The ANF notice issued under a different ordinance could not replace that judicial notice. Judgment, page 7.

When was the relevant section 31 notice issued?

On 7 September 1998. Most purchases preceded it, including the transfer of the house to Nuzhat Akbar on 6 August 1998. The Court also identified separate grounds protecting all appellants, irrespective of their purchase dates. Judgment, page 8.

Can suspected drug proceeds never be forfeited?

The judgment does not create that immunity. It holds that the court must act under the applicable law and within its jurisdiction. The Court distinguished forfeiture for smuggling under the 1977 Act from drug-proceeds forfeiture under the narcotics law. Judgment, page 10.

What does section 34 require for an indivisible share?

In the circumstances identified by the Court, the Special Judge had to offer payment of a fine equal to the market value at the time of forfeiture in place of forfeiting an indivisible part. The lower forums failed to exercise that jurisdiction. Judgment, page 10.

Which properties did the Supreme Court release?

The properties purchased by the appellants that were the subject of these appeals. It amended the earlier judgments to that extent and set aside the later adverse orders; it did not issue an unrestricted release of every asset associated with the original proceedings. Judgment, page 12.