1989 PLP 536 (MLD)

AJMAL MIAN, J.

(1) By this common judgment, we intend to dispose of the above three petitions as common facts and law are involved.

2. It seems that the Coast Guard had seized certain pre‑recorded VCR Cassettes and VCRs etc. from the business premises of the petitioners. The petitioners filed the above petitions. Alongwith the above petitions, the petitioners had also filed application for stay against the disposal of the seized items. The above stay application was disposed of by a consent order dated 20‑8 1986, which reads as follows:‑‑ "This application is allowed by consent of the two counsel in the following fashion, that the respondent will seek offers from the public and will keep the petitioners informed of the same. ' In case the petitioners are prepared to make a slightly better offer than the best offer received by the respondent from other persons, then the respondent shall sell those V.C.Rs. to the petitioners and deposit sale proceeds with the Nazir of this Court. In case the offers received by the respondent from the private persons are not reasonable according to the respondent then the respondent will make a further application to the Court for instructions."

3. It seems that in pursuance of the above consent order, the petitioners' offer for the purchase of the seized articles in terms of the above order were accepted. The petitioners received the seized articles after, depositing the sale prices with the Nazir of this Court. The petitions have now come up for regular hearing.

4. In support of the above petitions Mr. Abul Khair Ansari, learned counsel for the pejitioners has submitted as follows: (i) That since the petitioners have been acquitted in criminal proceedings the above petitions are liable to be allowed. (ii) That the zeized items were not notified items, and therefore, the seizure was illegal. (iii) That in pursuance of a notification issued by the Government the petitioners had obtained VCR licences and, therefore, their possession was legal.

5. As regards the first submission of Mr. Abul Khair that since the petitioners have been, acquitted the above petitions are liable to be allowed, we may observe that the object of criminal proceedings is to punish, whereas the object of proceedings on the revenue side is to realise the dues etc. We are inclined to hold that the mere fact that the petitioners have been acquitted in the criminal cases would not absolve their civil liability under the Customs Act.

6. As regards the other submissions of Mr, Abul Khair we may observe that the same involved investigation of the factual aspect and, therefore, it would be just and proper to remand the case to respondent No.2 i.e. Deputy Collector of Customs, Coast Guards, Karachi, who after notice to the petitioners will go into the above questions and other questions which the petitioners may urge before him. It will be open to the petitioners to approach this Court again in accordance with law, if they feel aggrieved by the orders, which, are to be passed. The amounts lying in the Court will be subject to the result of the proceedings referred to hereinabove.

7. The petitions stand disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs. H.B.T./M‑676/K Order accordingly.