THE STATE through Collector of Customs vs MAEUDULELLE MANDLENKOSI
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal filed by the State against judgments of the Lahore High Court, which had declared proceedings pending before a Sessions Judge against two foreign nationals illegal. The respondents were initially convicted by a Special Judge Customs for narcotics offenses under the Customs Act, 1969, and the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997. The trial court had additionally directed that a second trial be held before a Sessions Judge under the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997. The High Court set aside this direction, ruling it violated the constitutional protection against double jeopardy. Upon review, the Supreme Court noted that the respondents had already served their sentences, been released, and departed the country years prior. Consequently, the Court held that adjudicating the petitions would be an exercise in futility given the respondents' absence and the completion of their sentences. The petitions were dismissed, with the Court reserving the petitioner's right to raise the underlying legal question in a future, appropriate proceeding.
- Does a direction for a second trial for the same offense violate the constitutional protection against double jeopardy?
- Should the Supreme Court adjudicate a petition for leave to appeal when the respondents have already served their sentences and left the country?
- Section 16, Customs Act 1969
- Section 32, Customs Act 1969
- Section 139, Customs Act 1969
- Section 156(1)(8), Customs Act 1969
- Section 156(1)(70), Customs Act 1969
- Section 157, Customs Act 1969
- Section 178, Customs Act 1969
- Section 9(c), Control of Narcotics Substances Act 1997
- Section 71, Control of Narcotics Substances Act 1997
- Article 13, Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
1. ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.--- Leave to appeal is sought against two separate judgments dated 13-4- 2000 involving similar point passed by a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, accepting the writ petitions filed by the respondents and declaring the proceedings pending against them before the learned Sessions Judge, Lahore emanated out of F.I.Rs, Nos.121 of 1995 and 122 of 1995 registered on 1-11-1995 at Police Station Sarwar Road, Lahore Cantt under the Control of Narcotics Substance Act, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), illegal and without lawful authority.
2. ' We need not give the facts of the case in detail. Suffice it to say that both the respondents, foreign nationals, were found carrying 25 Kgs. And 13 Kgs. Heroin respectively and aforesaid F.I.Rs, were registered against them at Police Station Sarwar Road, Lahore Cantt. On 1-11-1995 under sections 16/32/139/156(1)(8)(70)/157/178 of the Customs Act, 1969, read with sections 9(c) and 71 of the Act.
3. After usual investigation the challan was submitted in both the cases before the learned Special Judge Customs, Lahore, who through different judgments convicted and sentenced the respondents to five years and seven years' R.I. Respectively with a direction that another challan under the Act be submitted before the learned Sessions Judge, Lahore. These judgments were challenged by the respondents through separate writ petitions. A learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, through the impugned judgments dated 13-4-2000 declared the direction for second trial before the learned Sessions Judge being violative of Article 13 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
4. ' The present petitions were filed by the department in May, 2000. On the last date of hearing on 21- 3-2003, we directed the Superintendent, Central Jail, Lahore, to appear and inform this Court about the whereabouts of the respondents.
5. ' Today he has entered appearance and stated that both the respondents after serving out their sentences recorded by the learned Special Judge Customs were released from jail on 1-7-2000 and 17-5-2000 respectively. This being so the respondents, being foreign nationals, have left the country nearly three years ago. In the circumstances it would be an exercise in futility to consider the case of the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand.
6. ' Resultantly, both the above petitions are dismissed reserving the right of the petitioner to approach this Court in an appropriate proceeding involving similar question well within time.