Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 1973 and Civil Appeal No. 109 of 1974, decided on 24th June, 1986.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court made on 20‑7‑1973 in Criminal Revision No. 531 of 1973 and Writ Petition No. 1047 of 1973).
Customs Act (IV of 1969)‑‑
‑‑‑S. 153, items 8 & 9‑‑Seizure of goods‑‑Goods seized were deposited with Customs Authorities for purpose of adjudication of matter under Customs Act, 1969‑‑Constitutional petition challenging seizure of goods and their adjudication by Authorities still pending and due to grant of a stay order no further proceedings qua adjudication took place‑‑Legality of seizure not remaining a moot question for consideration‑‑Counsel for accused willing to agitate matter with Customs Authorities or in pending writ petition and not pressing appeal before Supreme Court‑‑Appeal dismissed in circumstances.
Mian Muzaffar Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.
Sh. Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
Munir A. Sheikh, Deputy Attorney‑General and Ch. Fazal‑i -Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Appellants.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 24th June, 1986.
This order will dispose of Criminal 4peal No. 78 of 1973 and Civil Appeal No. 109 of 1973, which arise as a result of the seizure of 89 refrigerators, 18 air‑conditioners, one deep‑freezer and an appreciable quantity of spare parts from the premises of the appellant at different places on the ground that they were suspected to be smuggled goods.
The seizure was made under section 550 of the Criminal Procedure Code on 29th of March, 1973 by an official of the Pakistan Special Police Establishment, Lahore, but no order for their retention was obtained from the Magistrate under section 523, Cr. P. C . Further, an order was also communicated to the United Bank not to release the refrigerators which were in their custody. The appellants thereupon moved the Special Judge, who by order dated 18th of June, 1973, released the goods which were returned to the appellants, the propriety of which was next challenged before the High Court through a criminal revision. However, before initiating these proceedings before the High Court, a formal F.I.R. was lodged on the 19th of June, 1973 whereby violation of sections 420 and 120‑B of the Pakistan Penal Code, sections 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act II of 1947, section 153, items 8 and 9 of the Customs Act, 1969, sections 3 and 5 of the Imports and Exports Rules, 1950 and Regulation 23 of Foreign Exchange Regulation, 1947, was alleged.
The High Court while setting aside the order of the Special Judge confirmed the interim order passed on 6th of July, 1973, as under:
"In these circumstances the only appropriate order which can be passed at this stage, appears to be to confirm the interim order passed on 6th July, 1973 namely that the respondents shall not dispose of the articles returned to them by the impugned order passed on the 18th June, 1973 which are still in their control and possession and shall produce them before the Police Authorities or the Court whenever, ordered, to do so in writing."
The learned counsel for the appellants states that subsequent to this order, the police reseized 18 refrigerators which according to the Deputy Attorney ‑General were deposited by the Special Police on 22nd of August, 1973, with the Customs authorities for the purpose of adjudication of the matter under the Customs Act. The appellants filed Writ Petition No. 1042 of 1975 to challenge the seizure of the goods arid the adjudication by the Customs authorities which is still pending arid a s a stay order eras granted no further proceedings qua their adjudication have taken place. In this view of the matter, the legality of the seizure does not remain a moot question for consideration. However, the learned counsel for the appellants states that he would agitate against the reseizure of the goods and their handing over for the purpose of adjudication to the Customs authorities before that authority or in the pending writ petition and would not press this appeal.
Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 1973 is dismissed as such.
In Civil Appeal No. 109 of 1974, the Deputy Attorney‑General states that this appeal is now infructuous as the department has instructed him to state that the goods have already been taken back by the appellants and disposed of after the writ petition was allowed, and that the department will pursue other alternate remedies. In this view of the matter, we dismiss this appeal as having become in fructuous, but with no order as to costs.
M. Y. H: Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer