DIRECTOR INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE) Versus AHMAD FAZIL

Respondents were tried by the Special Judge Customs, Lahore in case F.I.R. No.12 of 1997 dated 9‑7‑1997 under sections 156(1) 14/77/81/82/86 read with section 178 of the Customs Act, 1969 registered at Police Station I&P Customs Intelligence, Lahore who vide judgment dated 14‑6‑1999 while entertaining application under section 265‑K. Cr.P.C. acquitted all respondents from the charge.

2. The Director Intelligence (appellant) being dissatisfied by the impugned judgment has filed this appeal against acquittal.

3. At the very outset learned counsel for respondents have taken the legal objection about the maintainability of this appeal on the ground that the same was not filed by a competent person/authority. It is argued that in view of section 4‑A of Central Law Officers Ordinance (Amendment) Act (XVII of 1985). Central Law Officers have been defined whereby Attorney‑General, all the Additional Attorneys‑General, Deputy Attorney‑General and the Standing Counsel shall be deemed to be the Public Prosecutor and shall be competent to institute, file and conduct any proceedings, including appeal and revision, for and on behalf of the Federal Government before any Court or Tribunal, including a Special Judge, constituted under any law. Thus the present appeal has not been filed by a competent person and is not maintainable. In support of his arguments learned counsel has relied on the case titled "The State v. Bashir Ahmed Chaudhry and others" (PLD 2000 Karachi 198).

4. Mr. K.M. Virk, Advocate/Standing Counsel for Customs Authorities under the instructions of Director Intelligence (appellant) has filed this appeal. The power of attorney filed by the learned counsel was admittedly signed by one Muhammad Younas, Superintendent Customs. Mr. K.M. Virk, Advocate is not a Law Officer as defined under section 4‑A of the Central Law Officers Ordinance nor he has been authorized A by any competent person/authority to file the present appeal. Following the dictum laid down in the case titled The State v. Bashir Ahmed Chaudhry and others (PLD 2000 Kar. 198) this appeal stands dismissed as not maintainable.

H.B.T./D‑20/L Appeal dismissed.