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 Review Petitions Nos. K‑6 and K‑7 of 1968, decided on 16th September 1968.
(On review from the judgment and order of this Court in Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeals Nos. K‑166 and K‑164 of 1967, respectively, passed on the 30th January 1968).
‑ XXVI, r. 5‑Review‑Petitioner in effect desiring rehearing of petition for leave to appeal to Supreme Court rejected earlier-- Such hearing not possible in review jurisdiction‑Grounds stated for review, in effect, grounds of appeal‑No appeal lies against orders of Supreme Court .‑ Petition for review dismissed.
Shah Jamil Alam, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Shafiq Ahmad, Senior Attorney for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 16th September 1968.
.‑These two petitions have been filed by the Collector of Customs, Karachi, for the review of the order of this Court dismissing Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeals Nos. K‑164 to K‑182 of 1967.
These petitions for special leave to appeal were filed to call in question the judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan declaring pertain seizures made by the Customs authorities from shopkeepers in Karachi to be illegal and directing the Customs authorities to hand back the goods so illegally seized.
The learned counsel for the Collector appearing in support of the petitions for special leave to appeal, did not before this Court dispute that the searches carried out by the Customs Officers and the seizures made by them were unlawful but contended that the writs by the High Court had become infructuous as the seized goods had again been re‑seized under section 178 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, after they bad been placed on trucks to be made over to the owners thereof.
This Court, however, held that the seizure under section 178 of the Sea Customs Act was only possible in respect of goods liable to confiscation under the Act and after the High Court had held that the original seizure was illegal, the Customs authorities could not stultify that by maintaining that the goods were still liable to confiscation. Such liability could only be determined by an appropriate proceeding. This Court was of the view that the construction canvassed on behalf of the petitioner would render sections 172 and 172‑A of the above‑mentioned Act wholly negatory.
If the goods were sought to be resized under section 178, then proper proceedings had to be taken under the Sea Customs Act to determine that the goods had been brought into Pakistan by some contravention of the provisions of the Sea Customs Act and were, therefore, liable to con fiscation. The petitions for special leave to appeal were, accordingly dismissed.
It is now contended by the petitioner that this construction of section 178 of the Sea Customs Act by this Court is incorrect as it is opposed to the very scheme and object of the Sea Customs Act. In effect, therefore, the Collector of Customs desires a re‑hearing of the petitions for special leave to appeal. This cannot, however, be done in review jurisdiction, for, a review is not an appeal and it can only be granted in certain special circumstances. There is no appeal from an order of this Court even if such an order is wrong.
The grounds that have been made out in the petitions for review are all grounds of appeal and not of review. In the circumstances these two review petitions must fail and are accordingly dismissed.
Petitions dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer