1968 SCMR 524 (PLP)
Haji ABDUL RAZZAK-Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER — RESPONDENT
| Citation | 1968 SCMR 524 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and Fazle-Akbar, J |
| Parties | Haji ABDUL RAZZAK-Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER — RESPONDENT |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 SCMR 524 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 SCMR 524 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and Fazle-Akbar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 SCMR 524 (PLP) (Haji ABDUL RAZZAK-Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER — RESPONDENT). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nasir Shahmir, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Vakil Ahmad Kidwai, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated the 15th November 1967, in Writ Petition No. 495 of 1967). Sea Customs Act (VIII of 1878), S.168-Person lodging report that his pick-up stolen-Pick-up later found carrying contraband goods-Question whether when owner of pick-up not being party to smuggling, vehicle could be confiscated under S. 168-Special Leave granted by Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
FAZLE-AKBAR, J.- An old Chevrolet Pick-up belonging to the petitioner was stolen on 6-6-65 from near his office in Gordhandas Market, Karachi. On 7-6-65, the said theft was reported at Kharadar Police Station. At 6 a.m, on 7-6-65, some miscreants were found carrying contraband goods in the said pick-up and when they were challenged by the Customs Officer, they escaped leaving the pick-up and the goods. After investigation, the Kharadar Police Station submitted a final report under section 173, Cr. P. C. stating that the complaint lodged by this petitioner was true but the culprits were not traceable. Thereafter, the Collector of Customs by his order dated 15-11-65, ordered confiscation of the Pick-up under section 168 of the Sea Customs Act. He, however, gave option to the petitioner to redeem the Pick-up after payment of a fine of Rs. 25,
000. Subsequently, the Superintendent of Police, Karachi, (West), under direction of the Board of Revenue reopened the case and submitted a charge-sheet under section 182, P. P. C. against this petitioner for lodging a false complaint, but he was acquitted. The petitioner's appeal and revision against the order of confiscation of his pick-up having failed, he moved a writ in the High Court but the same was dismissed. He now seeks special leave to appeal. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case section 168, of the Sea Customs Act was not at all applicable and as such the Collector acted beyond his power in confiscating the vehicle of the petitioner when he was not a party to the smuggling and had also an knowledge that his vehicle was used for the said purpose. As the question raised involves interpretation of section 168 of the Sea Customs Act, which is of general public importance, we grant leave to appeal as prayed, Security--Rs. 1,
000. Petition accepted.