Syed ADIL AHMED (Minor) vs DEPUTY COLLECTOR CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that upheld the confiscation of an oil tanker used for transporting contraband Charas. The petitioner, a minor, argued that the confiscation was unlawful because no show-cause notice was served upon him personally. The Supreme Court observed that the vehicle was driven by a paid driver who acted on behalf of the petitioner, establishing vicarious liability for the driver's actions. Furthermore, the Court noted that the vehicle was transferred into the petitioner's name after it had already been apprehended, which indicated the presence of mens rea on the part of the petitioner or his agent. The Court held that the High Court correctly dismissed the constitutional petition, as the orders passed by the Customs authorities were within their jurisdiction and not subject to interference in this manner. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused, affirming that the administrative tribunal's decision regarding the confiscation of the vehicle remained valid.
- Can a constitutional petition be directed against orders of administrative tribunals having jurisdiction in the matter?
- Is the owner of a vehicle vicariously liable for the actions of a paid driver regarding the transportation of contraband?
- Does the transfer of a vehicle's title after its apprehension by authorities indicate mens rea?
ORDER
ABDUL OADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---Leave to appeal" is sought against the judgment of the High Court, dated 29-8-1990.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the vehicle release of which was sought by the petitioner was found loaded with contraband Charas. Mubarak Khan was the driver of the oil tanker. A show-cause notice was served upon the driver. The Deputy Collector, Customs, on 8-6-1989 confiscated the oil tanker. Appeals before the Collector and the revision petition before the Member, Central Board of Revenue, were dismissed. These orders were challenged in Constitution Petition before the High Court which was dismissed by the impugned judgment.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner agitated the same point which did not find favour with the High Court. He submitted that the petitioner is a minor and no notice was served upon him. The petitions before the High Court and in this Court were filed by one Syed Haider Shah. The High Court has observed that Mubarak Khan was a paid driver who used to ply the vehicle on behalf of the petitioner, therefore, he was vicariously liable for the commissions or omissions relating to the vehicle entrusted by the petitioner to the driver.
3. Admittedly, the vehicle was apprehended on 18-10-1988. It was transferred in the name of the petitioner on 9-1-1989. This fact itself shows mens rea of the petitioner or his agent. The Constitution petition cannot be directed against such orders of the Administrative Tribunals having jurisdiction in the matter.
4. This petition has no force. The same is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.
Cited by 9 cases
- Jahangir Khan vs The State, etc 2025 IHC 56
- Jahangir Khan Versus State 2025 YLR 1457
- Kareem Bux vs The State 2024 SHC 1382
- Parvez Khan Son of Talazar vs The State 2024 SHC 152
- Inayatullah Pathan vs The State 2024 YLR 2376
- MUHAMMAD SALEH Versus State 2019 PCrLJN 146
- REHMATULLAH And Another vs THE STATE 2011 YLR 2477
- NAZAR HUSSAIN Versus State 2007 YLR 1601
- Rehmatullah S/o. Faizullah and Jan Muhammad S/o Haji Raffu vs The State