1987 P Cr (PLP)

(i) Minchinabad, Bahawalnagar and Fort Abbas Tehsils of the Bahawalnagar District. (ii) Yazman (Independent Sub‑Tehsil) and Ahmadpur East Tehsil of the Bahawalpur District. (iii) Khanpur, Rahimyar Khan, Sadiqabad, and Liaquatpur Tehsils of the Rahimvar Khan District. (iv) Nara Taluka of the Khairpur District. (v) Rohri, Mirpur Mathelo and Ubauro Talukas of the Sukkur District. (vi) Badin Taluka of the Hyderabad District. (vii) Nagarparkar, Chachro, Umerkot, Mithi and Diplo Talukas of the Tharparkar District. (viii) Khipro Taluka of the Sanghar District. (ix) Jati, Mirpursakro, Keti Bundar and Shahbandar Talukas of the Thatta District. (x) Shakargarh, Narowal, Pasrur and Saddar Tehsils of the Sialkot District. (xi) Shahdara Tehsil of the Sheikhupura District. (xii) Lahore, Kasur and Chunian Tehsils of the Lahore District. (xiii) Dipalpur and Pakpattan Tehsils of the Montgomery District. (xiv) Gujrat Tehsil of the Gujrat District:' Within their respective jurisdiction. This notification was published in an Extraordinary Issue of the Gazette of Pakistan on 11th July, 1959. It continued to remain in force till the Sea Customs Act and Land Customs Act were repealed in 1969 and after consolidation re‑enacted as Customs Act, Subsections (1) and (2) of section 221 of the Customs Act read as follows:‑-- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 6 of the General Clauses Act (1897), anything done or any action taken under the repealed enactments in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act shall, without prejudice to anything already done or any action already taken be deemed to have been done or taken under this Act: Provided that nothing in this Act shall be so construed as to have the effect of enhancing the punishment of an offence committed before the commencement of this Act: Provided further that where the period of limitation for the submission of an application or the fling of an appeal or revision prescribed under any of the repealed enactments had expired or had begun to run before the commencement of this Act the provisions of those enactments shall continue to apply such limitation. (2) The provisions of the General Clauses Act, 1897, in particular, section 6, section 8 and section 24 thereof shall apply to the repeal and re- enactment of the said enactments by this Act, subject to the provisions of subsection (1)." The repealed enactments referred to in subsection (2) include the Sea Customs Act and the Land Customs Act. Section 24 of the General Clauses Act which has been specifically made applicable to the Customs Act is in the following terms: "Where any Central Act or Regulation is, after the commencement of this Act, repealed and re‑enacted with or without modification, then unless it is otherwise expressly provided, any appointment, notification, order, scheme, rule form or bye‑law, made or issued under the repealed Act or Regulation, shall, so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions re‑enacted, continue in force, and be deemed to have been made or issued under the provisions so re- enacted, unless and until it is superseded by any appointment, notification, order, scheme, rule, form or bye‑law, made or issued under the provisions so re‑enacted : There is nothing in the Customs Act which may militate against the appointment of police officers as customs officers within the jurisdiction of their police stations. I should, therefore, think that by virtue of the operation of section 24 of the General Clauses Act the officers mentioned in the notification of 11‑7‑1959 continued to exercise the function of customs officers.

9. The authorities cited by the learned counsel in support of his contention are of not any assistance for it is to be noticed that the appointment of police officers as customs officers was confined to only specified areas. The areas to which the cases reported in the authorities related are not mentioned therein. On the other hand the case before me relates to Depalpur Tehsil which is clearly mentioned in the notification. I should, therefore, think that acting as customs officer the Station House Officer was competent to lay information before the trial Court against the appellant and seek his trial for the contravention of the provision of the Customs Act.

10. For the reasons stated above I am satisfied that the appellant was properly convicted by the learned Special Judge of an offence under section 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act. As regards the sentence it may be mentioned that the incident took place about 13 years ago and the value of the property attempted to be smuggled out of Pakistan was Rs. 3,050 only. I do not think that any purpose will be served by sending the appellant to jail now. I would, therefore, reduce his sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by him but enhance the sentence of fine to Rs. 7,

000. In default of payment of the fine the appellant shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year He is allowed two months to pay the amount of fine. S.GD/I‑11/L Order accordingly.