DAULAT KHAN And Another vs The STATE
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a conviction under the Customs Act, 1969, where the petitioners, a driver and a cleaner of a coach, were found guilty of smuggling contraband goods discovered in a hidden compartment of the vehicle. The petitioners challenged the conviction before the Supreme Court, arguing that the search was conducted without independent public witnesses, that there was no evidence establishing their knowledge of the contraband, and that the vehicle belonged to a third party, suggesting the goods could have been secreted without their involvement. Furthermore, they contended that their defense of being detained during the search was ignored by the lower courts. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the submissions, determined that the issues raised regarding the evidentiary value of the search, the lack of public witnesses, and the requirement of proving mens rea in smuggling cases necessitated a deeper examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the conviction could be sustained in light of these legal and factual contentions.
- Does the absence of public witnesses during a vehicle search under the Customs Act 1969 invalidate the recovery of contraband?
- Is it necessary to prove the driver's knowledge of contraband secreted in a vehicle to sustain a conviction for smuggling?
- Can a conviction under the Customs Act 1969 be upheld if the defense plea regarding the circumstances of the search was not considered by the trial court?
- Section 156(1) item 8, Customs Act 1969
- Section 156(1) item 89, Customs Act 1969
- Section 156(1) item 90, Customs Act 1969
- Section 157(2), Customs Act 1969
ORDER
RUSTAM S.SIDHWA, J.---This is a petition filed by Daulat Khan and Muhammad Hanif petitioners seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Baluchistan High Court passed as Special Judge, Appellate Court, Customs, Baluchistan dated 27-3-1990 dismissing their appeal.
2. The brief facts of the case are, that on 25-3-1989, Coach bearing registration No.GD-9275 was intercepted at Lakpass Check Post of Customs Authorities. Daulat Khan petitioner was its Driver, whereas Muhammad Hanif petitioner was its Cleaner. They scuffled with the Customs Authorities, who were compelled to bring the Coach along with them to Quetta Customs Office. Due to night, no further action was taken thereon. On the next morning the coach was searched in the presence of the two petitioners. The upper roof of the coach was removed, wherein contraband articles having CIF value of Rs.1,74,430 were. Recovered. Inventory in that respect was prepared by the Customs Authorities. After usual investigation, the petitioners were challaned before the Special Judge Customs for offences under sections 156(1) items 8, 189, 90 and 157(2) of the Customs Act.
Both the petitioners were convicted by the learned Special Judge Customs, Kalat at Mastung, on 29-11-1989. Their appeal before the High Court having failed on 7-3-1990, the petitioners pray for leave to appeal against the same.
3. On behalf of the petitioners it is submitted that no public witness was associated during the search of the coach, which was held over to the next day. It is further submitted that there is no evidence to show that either of the petitioners knew or had reason to believe that the alleged contrahand goods were being carried in the coach and considering that the, coach belonged to some third person, the fact that the alleged contraband goods had been secreted in the absence of the petitioners cannot be totally excluded. It is next submitted that there is no evidence to show that the goods were smuggled. It is lastly submitted that the plea of the petitioners that they were locked in a room when the search was conducted, was not taken into consideration by the Courts below, while recording their conviction.
4. The submissions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners require examination. We, therefore, grant leave in the case.