Shaik Daud Ismail JCA:

This is an appeal against the decision of the Taiping High Court which had ordered the release of property seized by the police under s. 25 of the Dangerous Drugs (Forfeiture of Property) Act 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) . The Taiping Sessions Court had earlier ordered the seized property to be forfeited.

This appeal, together with MRRJ A-05-98-95, revolves around the interpretation of s. 32 of the Act . The learned judge was of the view that since the provisions of s. 32 of the Act are unclear as to the procedure to be adopted by the Public Prosecutor in application under that section, in the Sessions Court, the procedure contained in s. 8 of the Act for applications to the High Court should have been adopted. Since this was not done, the Court held that forfeiture ought not to be ordered as it violated art. 13(1) of the Constitution. This article provides that no person shall be deprived of property save in accordance with law.

We find it necessary to reproduce the provisions of s. 32 and s. 8 of the Act .

32 (1) Where any property has been seized under this Act, other than under or by virtue of Part VII, and:

(a) no prosecution for any offence under any law is instituted with regard to such property;

(b) no proceedings are commenced by the Public Prosecutor for the forfeiture of such property under Part III; and

(c) no claim in writing is made by any person that he is lawfiilly entitled to such property and that it is not liable to forfeiture under this Act or under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 ,

within three months from the date of its seizure, the property shall become forfeited immediately upon the expiration of the said period of three months

(2) Where within three months from the date of the seizure of any property under this Act, a claim in writing is made thereto by any person in the terms mentioned in para. (c) of sub-s. (1), the Public Prosecutor shall within fourteen days after expiry of the said period of three months, refer such claim to a Sessions Court for its decision.

(3) The Sessions Court to which a claim is referred under sub-s. (2) shall issue a summons requiring the person claiming that he is lawfiilly entitled to the property, and the person from whom it was seized, if he and his whereabouts are known, to appear before the Court and upon such appearance, upon due service of such summons being proved, the Sessions Court shall proceed to the examination of the matter and if satisfied that no offence under this Act or under the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952 has been committed in respect of the property claimed and that such property is not illegal property, shall order the same to be released to the person claiming the same upon proof that he is lawfillly entitled thereto, and shall, in any other case, order the property forfeited.

(4) The provisions of this section shall be without prejudice to the power of

a police officer to release from seizure any property under s. 31 .

(5) Where property has been forfeited under sub-s. (1), it shall not be a bar to any prosecution for an offence under any law being instituted in respect of such property at any time thereafter.

Now s. 8 provides:

8(1). If the Public Prosecutor has reason to believe that any person is a liable person he may applyex parte to the High Court for an order of forfeiture of all the properties of which such person is a holder and which the Public Prosecutor has reason to believe are illegal properties.

(2). The application, supported by an affidavit or affidavits, shall -

(a) identify the liable person to be proceeded against, state his address of residence or business, if known, and other relevant particulars, which are known;

(b) state the grounds on which he is a liable person;

(c) identify the properties to be forfeited, set out their estimated value, and, if known, their location; and

(d) state any other matter, circumstances or information which, in the opinion of the Public Pro