2006 P Cr (PLP)

SALIM KHAN, J.

Dr. Maqbool Islam for himself and on behalf of Messrs M.B. Dyes Chemical and Silk Industries (Pvt.) Limited, Gadoon Amazai, filed the present writ petition, wherein he alleged that petitioner No.2, being a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, imported raw material and components. The petitioners were obliged to submit 25 bank guarantees to the respondents through the Bank of Khyber, which would be returned to them on submission of certificates of consumption. The petitioners alleged that 11 out of 25 bank guarantees were returned to them on submission of certificates of consumption, but out of the same, 4 bank guarantees were erroneously returned, which were for other matters of the petitioners, and were not related to the certificates of consumption. On coming to know about it, the petitioners submitted an application to the respondents with the request that the amounts of the said guarantees may be adjusted from other guarantees of the petitioners lying with the respondents. Later on, the respondents initiated criminal proceedings against petitioner No.1 on the basis of F.I.R. No.22 dated 22-5-2000 under sections 161, 97 and 104 of the Customs Act, 1969, subsection (1) of section 6 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, as well as S.R.O. A No. 108(I)/95, dated 12-2-1995. The allegations in the said F.I.R. were that the petitioners had stolen bank guarantees from the office of Assistant Collector Customs, Gadoon Amazai, had prepared fake release order, and had taken out the amounts of guarantees from the Bank of Khyber. Hence, the case against petitioner No. 1.

2. Mian Abdul Ghaffar, Advocate, for the petitioners, and Mr. Waqar Ahmad Seth, Advocate, for the respondents, discussed the provisions of sections 161, 97 and 104 of the Customs Act, 1969. Section 6 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, and the S.R.O. in question, and also the contents of the F.I.R. In the light of the relevant law, the F.I.R. was not for an offence under the Customs Act, 1969, and, therefore, could not be initiated and investigated by the officers of the Customs Collectorate. As a result of the discussion, it became clear that the parties may have some dispute about the release of some bank guarantees, for which the consumption certificates were not submitted, non-release of certain bank guarantees, for which certificates of consumption were submitted, and adjustment of the amounts through the remaining bank guarantees, or otherwise. But the respondents had no authority to record the impugned F.I.R. against petitioner No.1 under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1969, as no offence had been committed under the mentioned Act.

3. In these circumstances, we allow the present writ petition, and declare that the impugned F.I.R. is without any legal authority, and is void, and the respondents have no cause to conduct investigation against the petitioners under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1969, or any other law mentioned in the F.I.R. in question, for the purposes of this case. H.B.T./533/P Petition allowed.