Fazal-Ur-Rehman Hanif vs Station House Officer, Taluka Police Station, Mirpurkhas And 3 Others
This matter concerns petitions arising from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which upheld the confiscation of gold seized from the petitioner's vehicle by traffic police and subsequent adjudication proceedings under the Customs Act, 1969. The core legal questions involve whether traffic police, not notified as customs officers, possess the authority to search and seize goods under the Customs Act, 1969; whether the failure to issue mandatory notices under Sections 168, 171, and 180 of the Customs Act, 1969 renders the seizure and subsequent confiscation proceedings illegal; and whether the seized goods must be returned to the owner if statutory notice requirements are not met. The Supreme Court, finding substantial merit in the petitioner's contentions regarding the lack of authority of the seizing officers and the procedural non-compliance with mandatory notice requirements, granted leave to appeal to authoritatively resolve these issues. The Court directed the appeals to be fixed for hearing within six months, allowing parties to submit additional documentation.
- Can traffic police officers, who are not notified as customs officers, legally search and seize goods under the Customs Act 1969?
- Does the failure to issue mandatory notices under Sections 168, 171, and 180 of the Customs Act 1969 vitiate the legality of confiscation proceedings?
- Are seized goods required to be returned to the owner if statutory notice requirements under the Customs Act 1969 are not strictly followed?
- Section 6, Customs Act 1969
- Section 156(1)(8)(89), Customs Act 1969
- Section 168, Customs Act 1969
- Section 168(2), Customs Act 1969
- Section 171, Customs Act 1969
- Section 180, Customs Act 1969
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J. - These connected petitions arising out of the judgment dated 7.10.2003 passed by a learned Division Bench of High Court of Sindh, Karachi whereby the Constitutional Petition No. D- 961/1993 and Special Customs Appeal No. 61 of 1998 involving common question of law and facts, have been disposed of together.
2. The short facts leading to these petitions, are that traffic police having intercepted a vehicle being driven by Mitho driver of the petitioner on the highway, recovered 3000 tolas of gold belonging to the petitioner from the vehicle which was being taken to Mirpurkhas, In consequence thereto, a case under Section 156(1 )(8)(89) of the Customs Act, 1969 was registered and on completion of investigation, challan was .Submitted against the petitioner and his co-accused for the trial before the Special Judge (Customs and Taxation), Karachi. The Seizing Officer was also proceeded against for misappropriation of 2820 tolas of recovered gold. However, concerned customs authorities, on coming to know about the seizure of the gold by the police initiated the adjudication proceedings and Adjudicating Officer having come to the conclusion that petitioner has not been able to prove the lawful impart of gold into Pakistan, confiscated the gold with the vehicle and also imposed penalty on the petitioner under the Customs Act, 1969 vide order dated 23.7.1997. The petitioner being aggrieved of the order of confiscation of gold filed an appeal before the Customs Appellate Tribunal mainly on the ground that no notice under Section 171 of the Customs Act, 1969 was given to the petitioner and further no notice to the owner of goods, under Section 180 of the Customs Act, 1969 as well as under Section .168(2) of the ibid Act was given to the person from whose Custody offending goods were recovered, therefore, all proceedings subsequent to-the seizure of gold and the order of its confiscation was illegal. The petitioner on dismissal of appeal by Tribunal vide order dated 29.9.1998, filed a Constitutional Petition bearing No. D-961 of 1993 as well as Special Customs Appeal No. 61 of 1998, before the High Court of Sindh at Karachi and a learned Division Bench of the High Court having considered the question of law raised therein, dismissed the Constitutional petition as well as custom, appeal vide impugned judgment.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition has contended as under:-
(a) That the traffic police Inspector having been not notified as custom officer under Section 6 of the Customs Act, 1969 was not empowered to search the vehicle and make seizure of gold.
(b) That no notices under Section 171 and under section 168(2) and then notice under Section 180 of the co-accused were given which was mandatory requirement of law, therefore, the action on the part of police and customs authorities including the adjudication proceedings were illegal and without justification and the seized gold, on expiry of the prescribed period of notice under Section 168 of the Act was to tye necessarily returned to the owner.
(c) That neither the recovered gold was proved to have been smuggled nor the above question of law were properly considered by the High Court in appeal and also in Constitutional petition.
4. We having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance, have found that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the above contentions have sufficient force to be considered for authoritative announcement and consequently, we grant leave in these petitions inter alia to consider the above questions. These petitions are pending since 2003 therefore, we direct foe fixation of the appeals within a period of six months on the present record with permission to the parties to bring on record the additional documents if so required.