19895CMR311 (PLP)

(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss. 162 & 163‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Seizure of goods by Customs authorities‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider contention of department that entire proceedings against respondent had been dropped on account of order of High Court, despite fact that a part of relief claimed in prayer of department was not granted by High Court and as to whether or not articles which had been seized from premises of respondents and which were liable to be confiscated would lose their evidentiary value as recoveries only because of absence of search‑warrants. Syed Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner (in both Petitions). Nemo for Respondents (in both Petitions). Date of hearing: 2nd August, 1988. JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑These two petitions namely Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 437 of 1982 and Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 441 of 1982 have been filed by Deputy Collector,. Central Excise and Land Customs and Assistant Collector, and both are directed against judgments of the Lahore High Court Lahore dated 7th March, 1982 passed in two writ petitions. Since the same questions of law and fact are involved, these petitions are being taken up and disposed of together. Briefly the facts are that the petitioners in the two petitions raided the premises of the two sets of respondents and seized certain articles under the Customs Act. However, the petitioners had no warrants for search. Consequently their action was challenged in the two writ petitions filed by the respondents which were allowed. Hence the present petitions for leave to appeal. The High Court allowed the writ petitions on the ground that the raid had been conducted without search‑warrants and that under sections 162 and 163 of the Customs Act search‑warrants from a Magistrate were necessary before a search could be conducted for goods liable to be confiscated. Since there were neither search‑warrants in these cases nor justification for their absence, the action of the petitioners was held illegal and without lawful authority. Learned counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions states before us that the entire proceedings against the respondents had been dropped on account of the order of the High Court, despite the fact that a part of the relief claimed in the prayer of the petitioners was not granted by the High Court. 1t was further A submitted that the question as to whether or not the articles which had been seized from the premises of the respondents and which were liable to be confiscated would lose their evidentiary value as recoveries only because of the absence of search‑warrants, also requires examination. We grant leave in both the petitions in order to examine the questions raised by the learned counsel. These may be heard alongwith similar other cases, the particulars of which shall be furnished by the Advocate‑on‑Record. The appeals to be prepared on the present record with the direction to place on record all necessary documents which are relevant. M.Y.H./D‑28/S Leave granted.