Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision Petitions Nos. 351‑C and 361‑C and Criminal Miscellaneous No. 277/Q of 1984, decided on 21st May, 1985.

‑‑S. 156(1)(89)‑‑Pakistan Railways Police Act (VII of 1977), Ss.2, 3(1) & 3(4)‑‑Offences under Customs Act‑‑Whether cognizable by Railway Police‑‑Railway Police apprehending accused within Railway premises while possessing goods of, foreign origin‑‑Railway Police after investigation submitted challans against accused before Special Judge (Customs)‑‑Railway Police, held, was competent to take cognizance of all offences committed within railway premises‑‑Scope of their duties is extended to take notice of all violations of penal laws and limitation was only of territorial nature.

‑‑‑S. 156(1)(89)‑‑Pakistan Railways Act (VII of 1977), Ss.3(2) & 9(3)‑‑ Power of Railway Police‑‑Officer or member of Railway Police, held, had same powers for purposes of inquiry, investigation, arrest, trial and prosecution as an officer or member of police under Police Act (V of 1861), and Code of Criminal Procedure (V of 1898).

‑‑‑Ss. 6 & 156(1)(89)‑‑Pakistan Railways Act (VII of 1977), Ss.2, 3(1) & 3(4)‑‑Delegation of powers‑‑Jurisdiction of Railway Police‑‑Seizure of smuggled goods by Railway Police Officer‑‑Validity of‑‑Notification under S.6 of Customs Act, held, encompassed officers of Railway Police in expression "officer of police"‑‑Delegation of powers of nature mentioned in notification would, therefore, hardly be outside scope of functions envisaged by Railway Police Act for members of force created by‑‑Seizure of goods by Railway Police Officers in respect of which reasonable grounds existed to believe that they were smuggled into Pakistan was within their competence‑‑Revisions were dismissed.

Malik Muhammad Sharif for Petitioners.

Muhammad Qayyum Deputy A.‑G., Sheikh Maqbool Ahmad Standing Counsel and Fazal Hussain for the State.

This order will dispose of Criminal Revision No. 361/C of 1984, Criminal Revision No. 351/C of 1984 and Criminal Miscellaneous No. 277/Q of 1984. These have been taken together as a common question of law arises in them.

2. In Criminal Revision No. 361/C of 1984, the petitioners were travelling by train from Gujrat to Karachi on 29‑7‑1983. A party of the Railway Police held them at Wazirabad Railway Station. On their search a very large quantity of foreign cloth was recovered from their possession. Since they could not account for the possession of the cloth, a case under section 156 (1)(89) of the Customs Act was registered against them at the Railway Police Station, Wazirabad.

3. In Criminal Revision No. 351/C of 1984, on 30‑9‑1981 a party of the Railway Police found the petitioner in possession of goods of foreign origin at the Railway Station, Lahore. Since he could not account for the possession of these articles, a case under section 156(1)(89) of the Customs Act was registered against him at the Railway Police Station, Lahore.

4. In Criminal Miscellaneous No. 277/Q of 1984, the petitioner is a watch‑seller of Rawalpindi. On 16‑8‑1982 he was travelling from Karachi to Rawalpindi by train. A party of the Railway Police searched him at the Railway Station, Lahore and recovered 405 wrist watches of foreign origin from his possession. As a result a case under section 156(1)(89) of the Customs Act was registered against him at the Railway Police Station, Lahore.

5. In all the three abovementioned cases, the Railway Police carried out the investigations and as a consequence of its findings it submitted challans against the petitioners in ‑the Court of the Special Judge (Customs), Lahore. The cases are still pending. The petitioners in all the three cases moved the learned Special Judge for their acquittal under section 265‑K of the Code of Criminal Procedure but their, applications in this regard were rejected. They have now moved this Court for the same relief.

6. On behalf of the petitioners, it is contended that the Railway Police was not competent to seize their goods or register cases against them or investigate the same or submit challans in the Court of the Special Judge. Consequently, the entire proceedings were illegal and the learned Special Judge had no jurisdiction to try them. In support of this contention it is argued that the Customs Act is a complete Code in itself, creating its own functionaries and laying down its own procedure for the seizure of allegedly contraband goods, investigation of cases relating to the violation of its provisions and submission o: challans. It has constituted even its own Courts with a special procedure for the trial of cases. The Railway Police which has been set up for special purpose does not figure in any manner in the enforcement of the Customs Act and as such its members cannot exercise any power thereunder.

7. To examine the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners it will be useful to take notice of the relevant provision of the Customs Act, hereinafter called the Act. Under section 168(1) the 'appropriate officer' may seize any goods liable to confiscation. Admittedly, such goods as are brought into Pakistan in contravention of the provisions of the Act are one of the categories of goods liable to confiscation within the meaning of this subsection. The expression 'appropriate officer' has been defined in section 2(b) of the Act. The definition reads as follows:‑

"'Appropriate Officer,' in relation to any functions to be performed under this Act, means the officer of customs to whom such functions have been assigned by or under this Act."

Section 6 of the Act empowers the Central Board of Revenue to entrust any functions of any officer of customs under this Act to any officer of Vie Federal or Provincial Government. In exercise of this power the Board issued a Notification, bearing No. S.R.O. 1029(1)/74, dated 29‑7‑1974, whereby it entrusted functions of the officers of the customs to different ranks of police officers as given below:‑---

By virtue of this notification a police officer not below the rank of an Assistant Sub‑Inspector became competent to exercise the power of an officer of the customs under section 168(1) and thus seize any goods which were liable to confiscation under the Act. It is not the case of the petitioners that the police officers who seized the goods from their possession were not of the ranks mentioned in the notification.

8. The contention on behalf of the petitioners is that the Railway Police is a special force created entirely to deal with offences in relation to the railways and as such offences under the Act are beyond its pale of duties. Thus, the notification mentioned above does not apply to the officers of the Railway Police and for that reasons they cannot by virtue thereof exercise any power under the Act. In support of this contention the petitioners refer to the preamble of the Pakistan Railways Police Act, 1977 which reads as follows:‑

"Whereas it is expedient to provide for the constitution and regulation of the Pakistan Railway Police for the safety of passengers and goods transported by Pakistan Railways, the protection of Railway property, the prevention, inquiry and investigation of offences committed in relation to Pakistan Railways and for matters connected therewith."

There is no doubt that the preamble as it stands worded does support the contention of the petitioners that the Railway Police is concerned entirely with the prevention, inquiry and, investigation of offences committed in relation to the Pakistan Railways; but, then, if we read the Act of 1977 as a whole we do not find any such limitation in its functions. It is not right to presume any restrictions on the functions and duties of the Railway Police just for the reason that the preamble has cited a limited purpose as the reason for its establishment. According to Maxwell "the preamble cannot either restrict or extend the enacting part, when the language and the object and scope of the Act are not open to doubt. It is not unusual to find that the enacting part is not exactly co‑extensive with the preamble. In many Acts of Parliament, although a particular mischief is recited, the legislative provisions extend beyond it. (Interpretation of Statutes, page 45, Eleventh Edition)".

9. Section 3(1) of the Pakistan Railways Police Act sets out the functions of the Railways Police. According to clause (c) of this subsection one of the functions of the Railway Police is:‑‑

"General maintenance of law and order on the railways, and taking cognizance of offences committed on them."

The words 'offence' and 'railway' have been defined in section 2 of the said Act. According to clause (f) of that section the word 'offence' means "an offence punishable under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force". It is significant to note that the definition in question does not confine the meaning of the said word to offences committed in relation to the Pakistan Railways alone but, on the contrary, it encompasses violations of all penal laws in force in Pakistan. The word 'railway' has been defined in clause (i) of the same section. For the purpose of the said Act the said clause for most parts adopts the definition of the word as given in the Railways Act. Section 3(4) of the Railways Act, defines the word 'railway' as follows:‑---

"'railway' means a railway or any portion of a railway, for the public carriage of passengers, animals or goods, and includes:‑‑

(a) all land within the fences or other boundary‑marks indicating the limits of the land appurtenant to a railway;

(b) all lines of rails, sidings, or branches worked over for the purposes of, or in connection with, a railway;

(c) all stations, offices, warehouses, wharves, workshops, manufactories, fixed plant and machinery and other works constructed for the purposes of, or in connection within, a railway; and

(d) all ferries, ships, boats and rafts which are used on inland waters for the purposes of the traffic of a railway and belong to or are hired or worked by the authority administering the railway. "

Reading clause (c) of section 3(1) of the Pakistan Railways Police Act, in the light of the definitions of the words 'offence' and 'railway' as noticed above it is quite clear that the Railway Police is competent to take cognizance of all offences committed at places falling within the aforementioned definition of the word 'railway' which of course includes a railway station. This being the position it is not correct on the pari of the petitioners to contend that the Railway Police is a force of special nature created to deal with specified types of matters, connected entirely with the Pakistan Railways. On the other hand it appears that the scope of their duties extends to taking notice of all violations of penal laws, and the only limitation on their powers in this regard is of territorial nature; that is, they can intervene only if the offence is committed at a place which comes within the definition of the word 'railway'.

10. It is also to be noticed that apart from having the same hierarchical set‑up and identical nomenclature for officers of the corresponding ranks, the members of the Railway Police in the performance of its functions, enjoy the same powers and follow the same procedure as the ordinary police force created under the Police Act, 1861. Thus, under section 9(3) of the Pakistan Railways Police Act an officer or member of the Railway Police, for the purpose of inquiry, investigations, arrest, trial and prosecution, exercises all the powers conferred on an officer or member of police under the Police Act; 1861 and the Code. In pursuance of the powers vested in it under section 9(3) and section 3(2) of the Railways Police Act, the Federal Government has set up police stations at various railway stationer including at those of Lahore and Wazirabad. Admittedly, the functions of these police stations do not differ in any way from the police stations manned by the police force constituted under the Police Act, 1861. On my inquiry from the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as to what would happen if an offence not connected with the railway administration such as murder, was committed at a railway platform, I was told that an F.I. R. would be registered at the Railway Police Station concerned and the case would be investigated and a challan submitted by the Railway Police.

11. To sum up, I find that in the performance of their duties and exercise of their functions there is no difference between the police force created under the Police Act, 1861 and the Railways Police constituted under the Railways Police Act except to the extent that the latter's sphere of activity is territorially confined to the railway stations and such other places as may fall within the definition of the word 'railway', I can, therefore, see no justification for taking the view that the expression "officers of Police" mentioned in the notification of the Central Board of Revenue does not encompass officers of the railway police. There is nothing in the notification which may indicate that the police force mentioned therein is the police force created by the Police Act of 1861 alone. I see no basis for introducing this qualification while interpreting the notification. It may be of interest to note that to keep a look‑out for smuggling is one of the statutory functions of a Railway Police Officer (see section 3(1)(f) of the Railways Police Act). A delegation of power of the nature mentioned in the notification would, therefore, hardly be outside the scope of functions envisaged by the Railways Police Act for members of the force created by it.

12. In view of what I have stated above I am of the view that by virtue of the said notification of the Central Board of Revenue the officers of the Railway Police of the ranks mentioned therein were competent to seize goods with respect to which there were reasonable grounds to believe that they had been smuggled into Pakistan. I would, therefore, repell the attack of the petitioners on the legality of the alleged seizure of goods on the ground of competency of the officers of the Railway Police‑ .

13. It is also not right on the part of the petitioners to contend that the officers of the Railway Police were not competent to inquire into offences under the Customs Act or submit challan against them. The provisions relating to arrest of persons found to have committed an offence created by the Customs Act are to be found in subsection (1) and subsection (2) of section 161 thereof. These two subsections enable an officer of the customs authorised in this behalf or a person‑duly empowered for the prevention of smuggling, to arrest anyone about whom he has reason to believe that he has committed an offence under the Act. By virtue of the notification referred to above officers of the police of the rank of Assistant Sub‑Inspector or above have been authorised to make arrest under these subsections. Subsection (3) of section 161 of the Act requires that the persons so arrested should be produced before the nearest officer of the customs authorised by the Collector of Customs, or, if there is no officer within a reasonable distance, before the officer‑in‑charge of the nearest police station. An inquiry into an offence created by the Act is governed by subsection (8) of section 161 of the Act. Under this subsection an officer‑in‑charge of a police station can inquiry into the charge against a person whom he has himself arrested. Similarly under subsection (13) the same officer is competent to submit a challan before the Special Judge. For reasons already recorded there is no satisfactory basis for holding that the expression 'police station' as occurring in subsections (3),(8) and (13), ibid, does not include a Railway Police Station or the expression 'officer‑in‑charge' thereof does not refer to a Railway Police Officer holding charge of a Railway Police Station. In the circumstances I do not see how the proceedings at present pending before the learned Special Judge are illegal merely because the goods were seized, the case was inquired into and the challan was submitted by members of the Railway Police.

14. These criminal revisions and application for quashment are without any merit and are hereby dismissed.

S.A./278/L Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.