Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K‑10 of 1969, decided on 5th May 1969.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court. of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated the 14th February 1967, in Petitions Nos. 123 to 127, 132 to 144 and 158 of 1967).
Art. 58(3)‑Question whether High Court was right in making impugned order, one of academic interest only in circumstance of case‑Petition for special leave to appeal dismissed.
Ali Ahmad Fazeel, Senior Advocate (Naimuddin, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Shafiq Ahmad, Senior Attorney for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 5th May 1969
This petition for special leave to appeal raises a question as to the interpretation of section 178 of the Sea Customs Act.
The Customs Officers searched the shop of the respondent on the 28th of March 1967, and seized a certain quantity of cloth of foreign origin. This action was stated to have been taken pursuant to the provisions of section 172‑A of the Sea Customs Act. The respondent then filed a Writ Petition (No. 132 of 1967), in the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, for a declaration that the search and the seizure of the cloth was without lawful authority. High Court held that the search of the respondent's shop was illegal, but the two learned Judges differed as to whether the goods seized should be ordered to be returned. Accordingly, the matter was referred to a third Judge who held that the seized cloth could be returned subject to certain conditions. After the judgment of the High Court, the seized cloth was formally released on the 31st of October 1967, but the same was simultaneously re‑seized by the Customs Authorities under section 178 of the Sea Customs Act.
Meanwhile, the Customs Authorities made a petition for special leave to appeal against the High Court judgment in Writ Petition No. 132 of 1967. This Court refused leave with the observation that if the goods were sought to be re‑seized under section 178 of the Sea Customs Act, then, a determination in a proper proceeding should be made that the goods are liable to confiscation. In that view, the re‑seizure of the cloth, in the instant case was found by this Court to be equally without lawful authority. An application for review of the said order of this Court was dismissed for the reason that the ground taken in the Review could be taken only in an appeal.
After the re‑seizure of the cloth under section 178 of the Act, the respondent made another Writ Petition (No. 568 of 1967) challenging the legality of re‑seizure of the same cloth under the said section. Relying on the observation of this Court in the special leave petition of the Customs Authorities, the High Court accepted this Writ Petition and ordered the Customs Authorities to return the seized cloth to the respondent. The Customs Authorities complied with this direction of the High Court and returned the cloth re‑seized under section 178.
The Customs Authorities have now made this petition seeking leave to appeal against the High Court's order in Writ Petition No. 568 of 1967, directing the return of the cloth re‑seized under section 178.
As the seized cloth has already been returned to the respondent in compliance with the direction of the High Court the question whether the High Court was right in making that order has become of academic interest. However, the question as to the interpretation of section 178 of the Sea Customs Act may be raised in an appropriate case for re‑consideration by this Court. With this observation, we dismiss the petition.
Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer