Haji NOOR MUHAMMAD vs COLLECTOR (CUSTOMS), LAHORE and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition filed for the quashment of a First Information Report registered under the Customs Act, 1969, in respect of imported gold bars and electronic goods. The core legal question concerns whether the F.I.R. regarding alleged smuggling should be quashed when the petitioner contends that the items were declared and not banned, thus excluding the application of the penal provisions of the Customs Act. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised by the petitioner require the appreciation of evidence and cannot be determined at the preliminary stage of quashment, upholding the High Court's dismissal. The key principle laid down is that where factual controversies and pleas raised in a petition for quashment of an F.I.R. necessitate evidence, constitutional or writ jurisdiction will not be exercised to stifle criminal investigation or proceedings, and such matters must be brought to their logical conclusion through trial.
- Can an F.I.R. registered under the Customs Act, 1969 be quashed through a constitutional petition when the accused raises pleas that require the recording of evidence?
- Whether the import of gold bars under a bill of entry exempts the transaction from the definition of smuggling under section 2(s) of the Customs Act, 1969 without a factual inquiry?
- Should leave to appeal be refused when the petitioner prolongs the proceedings and fails to substantiate grounds to differ with the High Court's reasoning?
- Section 2(s), Customs Act 1969
- Section 16, Customs Act 1969
- Section 32, Customs Act 1969
- Section 156(1)(8)(14), Customs Act 1969
- Section 157, Customs Act 1969
- Section 178, Customs Act 1969
ORDER
1. ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the order, dated 8-2-1999 of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby Writ Petition No,1632 of 1998 filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of F.I.R. No,53 of 1997 registered on 26-11-1997 at Police Station, Customs House, Lahore, under sections 2(s), 16, 32, 156(1)(8)(14), 157 and 178 of the Customs Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), was dismissed.
2. ' The facts precisely stated for the disposal of this petition are that the petitioner brought 264 bars of gold, each weighing 10 Tolas, from Dubai along with certain electronic goods. The Customs Authorities intercepted the goods and after detailed enquiry aforestated F.I.R. Was got registered against the petitioner at the instance of Deputy Superintendent Customs, Lahore. The petitioner filed aforesaid writ petition before the Lahore High Court, Lahore, seeking quashment of above F.I.R.
3. On the ground that gold was not a banned item and since he had already made a declaration regarding the import of said gold in the bill of entry, as such it would not amount to 'smuggling' as defined in section 2(s) of the Act. The learned Single Judge of the High Court, after appreciating the arguments of the parties, dismissed the writ petition through his order, dated 8-2-1999, impugned herein. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
4. ' We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondents None is present from the petitioner's side. We have gone thrbugh the entire documents appended with this petition.
5. It is borne out from the record that the above F.I.R. Was recorded as far back as on 26-11-1997 and the aforementioned writ petition was filed hardly after two months of the registration thereof. Since then this matter is struck up in Courts and the said F.I.R. Has not been brought to its logical conclusion. The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the aforesaid writ petition on 8- 2-1999. Thereafter the petitioner approached this Court on 7-5-1999 and since then the matter is pending adjudication before this Court.
6. ' It is also reflected from the record that an adjournment was sought from this Court as far back as on 26-11-1999 by the learned Advocate on Record for the petitioner for engaging the services of another learned counsel. Since then the matter is in the melting pot and the position is the same even today. The petitioner is simply prolonging the conclusion of the issue. We have given our anxious consideration to the entire facts of the case and have gone through the impugned judgment. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has advanced cogent reasons in support of the same. All the pleas taken by the petitioner require evidence and could only be settled after securing the same.
7. ' In these circumstances, we do not find any justification to differ with the reasoning of the learned Single Judge of the High Court detailed in the impugned order. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed and leave refused. The interim orders of this Court, dated 21-7-1999 and 30-7-1999 are hereby recalled.