1999 P Cr (PLP)

Officers Provisions of the Act???? (sections) 1 2 3 1 Officers not below the rank of Sub‑ Inspector, within their respective jurisdictions. 158; 160; 161(1) and (2); 164; 165; 168(1) and (3); 172 and 174. 2 Officers not below the rank of Assistant Superintendent of Police/Deputy Superintendent of Police, within their respective jurisdictions. 161(3),. (4),(8) and (10); 162(l); 163 and 166. 3 Officers not below the rank of Superintendent of Police, within their respective jurisdictions. 176 This is to be read with section 3(1) of the F.I.A. Act and Item 5 of the Schedule appended thereto. It is clear from these provisions that the F.I.A. officials have powers, of search, seizure, arrest and investigation under sections 158, 160 and 161 of Act 1969. This question again was referred to Mr. Zafar‑ul‑Majeed, the then Collector, who decided the same vide order, dated 11‑12‑1996 after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and prosecution. It was held by him that the F.I.A. legally registered the case and the Customs Authorities could legally adjudicate the matter. This order was included through amendment in the writ petition. The conclusion is that Asad Awan. S.‑I. was competent to intercept the currency, search and arrest the accused and register a case under sections 156(1)(8)(81)(82), 158, 160 and 164 of the Act, 1969. This legal question had been dealt at length in connected Criminal Miscellaneous No.167/Q of 1998 moved by the petitioner for quashment of criminal case pending trial before learned Special Judge (Customs), Lahore.

6. The next question for determination is whether the time for issuance of show‑cause notice was legally extended or not? The currency was seized on 13‑4‑1995 while time was extended on 11‑6‑1995. The show‑cause notice under section 180 of the Act, 1969 is mandatory and in view of provisions of section 168(2) of the Act, 1969 it was to be issued within two months. However, the time could be extended by Collector for another two months for the reasons to be recorded in writing. The extension was granted by the Collector. The order reads as under:‑‑ Dated 11th June, 1995 In exercise of the powers conferred upon me under section 168(2) of the Customs Act, 1969, I hereby grant an extension of two months in Case F.I.R. No.3 of 1995, dated 13‑4‑1995 of Police Station Immigration Airport, Lahore relating to the seizure of Pakistan Currency alongwith miscellaneous goods for issuance of show cause, since complete relevant yaners are awaited from the Seizing/detecting agency. (Sd.) (Sarfraz Ahmad Khan), Collector of Customs. " The matter was subsequently referred to the Collector, who vide order, dated 28‑2‑1996 held that the time was duly extended. This order has not been challenged in this writ petition. This way the same has become final. Even otherwise, the justification rendered by the Collector while extending time observed that the complete record was not available, therefore, the show‑cause notice could not be issued within two months. This is legal justification and there is nothing on record to take a contrary view. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the cases of Abdul Zahir and another, Charan Das Malhotra (supra) and unreported judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.4293 of 1990 but the same are not attracted to the facts of the case. Show‑cause notice, dated 19‑7‑1995 was served well within the extended time, therefore, legal. There is nothing on record to set aside the order of Collector, dated 28‑2‑1996.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection to the effect that F.I.A. is not a party. In spite of objection the F.I.A. has not been impleaded as respondent. However, as the non‑joinder would not defeat the action, therefore, this all is of mere academic discussion. The other preliminary objection was that the petitioner has alternate remedy. Now in the present case there has been adjudication of the two points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner by the Collectors but instead of challenging the order in appeal the petitioner kept this petition alive by making amendment. The tendency to file Constitutional petitions instead of pursuing remedy before the authority. Tribunal as per law is recent and it is dangerous to encourage because on the one hand, the statutory authorities are ignored/bypassed. This way the provisions of law are made redundant and on the other hand, the cases come to High Court within the factual side having been thrashed properly. This may result in injustice. It is difficult, if not impossible, to apply the law without the basic facts having been ascertained clearly and categorically. The Honourable Supreme Court has clearly held that all objections legal and factual should be raised before the statutory authorities. In this behalf, reference could be made to Pir Sabir Shah v. Shad Muhammad Khan, M.P.A., N.‑W.F.P. and another PLD 1995 SC 66 and The Collector of Customs, Karachi v. New Electronics (Pvt.) Ltd. and 59 others PLD 1994 SC

363. The same view was followed by learned Full Bench of this Court in the case reported as Riffat Askari v. The State PLD 1997 Lah. 285 and to the same effect was the judgment in the case of Gul Muhammad v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise and Land Customs and 2 others PLD 1982 Pesh.

30. The tendency of invoking Constitutional jurisdiction without exhausting the remedies available under the relevant law not only results in side tracking the proceedings but also to be discouraged in the interest of justice because it is not possible to do justice without factual controversy having been sorted out in the appeal etc. It is needless to mention here that in custom! cases aggrieved person can maintain one appeal before the Collector Customs (Appeals). The same is followed by appeal before the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and then finally appeal in the High Court as per section 196 of Act, 1969 as amended by Finance Act, 1997, which is to be heard by a Bench not less two Judges. This writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this short ground alone. However, it is made clear that the observations, findings recorded above shall, in no way, prejudice the adjudication proceedings which have to be decided in accordance, with law and on its own merits. The conduct of the petitioner also disentitled him of any relief in the Constitutional jurisdiction.

8. The upshot of this discussion is that the writ petition is dismissed with costs both on merits as well as incompetent. N.H.Q./K‑75/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.