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.
Special Criminal Revision Application No. 1 of 1980, decided on 23rdAugust, 1980.
---- Ss. 435 & 439 and Customs Act (IV of 1969), S. 185-F read with Notification S. R. O. 1426 (1)/73, dated 5th October, 1973-Revision (criminal)-Question whether goods seized from petitioner covered by item 12 or 17 of current Notification yet to be decided by trial Court, by reference to evidence and expert opinion-No inter ference, held, called for in revisional jurisdiction of High Court at this stage.-[Revision (criminal)].
Azizullah Shaikh and A. R. Khan for Applicants,
Abul Khair Ansari for the State.
Dates of hearing: 31st May and 23rd August, 1980.
The question raised in this revision by the applicants is that the goods seized by the customs which are the subject-matter of the charge against them do not fall within any of the categories specified in the current Notification issued by the Government of Pakistan, namely, S. R. O. 1426 (1)/73 dated 5thOctober, 1973 under sub-clause (a) of clause (s) of section 2 and subsection (2) of section 156 of the Customs Act, 1969. The goods have been described in column 5 of the challan submitted before the trial Court which consist of Turntable, Stereo, Amplifier Cassette Deck. Speakers. Picture Tube, Boosters valued at Rs. 96,950. Learned counsel has referred to the earlier Notification issued in this behalf dated 24th March, 1973 in which according to the learned counsel specific item No. 2 may have covered the goods in question. However, learned counsel argue that there is no similar item in the current Notification and none of the goods can call under Item No. 12 or 17 of the current Notification.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has filed before me a certificate issued by the Principal Appraiser, Group VII, Customs House, Karachi who has opined that Cassette Deck GXC-725D, Turntable AP-1106 and Stereo Amplifier AM-2650 are goods covered by item No. 12 and Stereo Tuner AT-2450 by Item No. 17, as electrical domestic appliances and wireless and radio transmission and reception apparatus which squarely fall within the ambit of the current Notification.
3. Since the question raised is a disputed question of fact requiring enquiry by reference to the evidence and/or expert opinion, I feel that this question must be left for the trial Court to determine. In the circumstances, no interference is called for in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court at its stage.
4. However, Mr. Azizullah Shaikh, learned counsel fro the applicants very rightly submits that the delay in the proceedings of the trial in the trial Court may seriously prejudice the applicant who will have to undergo the rigors of the trial on a question which may ultimately be resolved in favour of the applicant and accordingly requests that direction may be issued to the trial Court to dispose of the case within specified time. I think the request is reasonable.
5. In the result, while dismissing this revision I direct the trial Court to dispose of the case within a period of two months. It may be observed at the learned State Counsel has undertaken to cooperate to the disposal the case within the specified period.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer