| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2021 SLG 211 2021 SLD 211 2021 PTD 195 |
Sindh High Court
Special Criminal Revision Application No. 170 of 2019 along with Special Criminal Applications Nos. 178, 185, 186, 187, 188, 190, 207 and 208 of 2019, decided on 30th December, 2019, Date of hearing: 17th December, 2019.
FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE
Zain A. Jatoi for Applicant (in R.A. No.170 of 2019). Ashiq Ali Anwer Rana for Applicant (in connected R.As). Aqil Ahmed for
Respondents (in R.As. except R.As. Nos.207 and 208 of 2019). Muhammad Riaz for
Respondents (in R.As. Nos. 207 and 208 of 2019).
Special Criminal Revision Application No. 170 of 2019 along with Special Criminal Applications Nos. 178, 185, 186, 187, 188, 190, 207 and 208 of 2019, decided on 30th December, 2019, Date of hearing: 17th December, 2019.
FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE
Zain A. Jatoi for Applicant (in R.A. No.170 of 2019). Ashiq Ali Anwer Rana for Applicant (in connected R.As). Aqil Ahmed for
Respondents (in R.As. except R.As. Nos.207 and 208 of 2019). Muhammad Riaz for
Respondents (in R.As. Nos. 207 and 208 of 2019).
THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF INTELLIGENCE AND INVESTIGATION CUSTOMS, KARACHI
VS
THE SPECIAL JUDGE (CUSTOMS, TAXATION AND ANTISMUGGLING) KARACHI AND 20 OTHERS
Law: Customs Act, 1969
Section: 2(s)(iii),15,185-F
(a) Interpretation of statutes---
----Literal rule and grammatical construction--- Applicability---Judge, according to literal rule, must rely on exact wording of statute while describing the law--- Judge can deviate from such rule only when grammatical construction of statute gives some absurd meaning and it is necessary to trace intention of legislature--- When language of law is plain and simple and convey meaning without any doubt and ambiguity, there is no need to avoid literal or textual meaning of law--- Words of law cannot be read in isolation and entire statute is to be read to give a proper comprehension.
(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---
----Ss.2(s)(iii), 15 185-F---Smuggling---Special Criminal Revision Application---Trial Court declared proceedings of trial of smuggling against respondents as coram non judice and were returned to authorities for adjudication--- Validity--- Act of smuggling of lawful items, by intentionally evading customs duty, was done either deceiving or coupling customs authorities or by utilizing routes that were not specified as declared routes and / or where customs stations were not available---Goods brought into or taken out of the country in both the cases, were considered as smuggled goods irrespective of the fact that the same were either specified or notified goods or not---Criminal case and civil liability were two different and distinguished proceedings and both could be carried out simultaneously---In the present case, huge quantities of betel nuts were recovered and at the time of recovery respondents could not satisfy about lawful import, as such there was no other option with prosecution but to consider availability of such huge quantities in violation of restrictions mentioned as well as willfully evasion of customs duty and taxes, therefore, case was rightly initiated--- If respondents considered that they were not involved in case and they had been falsely implicated then they could agitate their pleas of innocence before Trial Court and could seek their pre-trial or pending trial acquittal as provided under S.249-A or S.265-K, Cr.P.C. as the case was--- High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside the order passed by Trial Court as there was material impropriety in that order regarding definition of smuggling of betel nuts and case was remanded to Trial Court for decision afresh---Revision was allowed, in circumstances.
Salooka Steels Ltd. v. Director General, Coast Guard Pakistan PLD 1981 Quetta 1; Collector of Customs v. Minhaj-ud-Din and another 2010 PTD (Trib.) 160; Zafar Ahmed Phul v. The State 1981 PCr.LJ 66; Amanullah Khan v. Shabbir Hussain, SHO and another 1984 Cr.LJ 3096(1); Mrs. Haim Tabbara v. Director General, Pakistan Coast Guard PLD 1980 Kar. 44; Shabbir Ahmed Shah v. Pakistan PLD 1979 Kar. 68 and The State v. Muhammad Irfan and others 1987 PCr.LJ 325 ref.
----Literal rule and grammatical construction--- Applicability---Judge, according to literal rule, must rely on exact wording of statute while describing the law--- Judge can deviate from such rule only when grammatical construction of statute gives some absurd meaning and it is necessary to trace intention of legislature--- When language of law is plain and simple and convey meaning without any doubt and ambiguity, there is no need to avoid literal or textual meaning of law--- Words of law cannot be read in isolation and entire statute is to be read to give a proper comprehension.
(b) Customs Act (IV of 1969)---
----Ss.2(s)(iii), 15 185-F---Smuggling---Special Criminal Revision Application---Trial Court declared proceedings of trial of smuggling against respondents as coram non judice and were returned to authorities for adjudication--- Validity--- Act of smuggling of lawful items, by intentionally evading customs duty, was done either deceiving or coupling customs authorities or by utilizing routes that were not specified as declared routes and / or where customs stations were not available---Goods brought into or taken out of the country in both the cases, were considered as smuggled goods irrespective of the fact that the same were either specified or notified goods or not---Criminal case and civil liability were two different and distinguished proceedings and both could be carried out simultaneously---In the present case, huge quantities of betel nuts were recovered and at the time of recovery respondents could not satisfy about lawful import, as such there was no other option with prosecution but to consider availability of such huge quantities in violation of restrictions mentioned as well as willfully evasion of customs duty and taxes, therefore, case was rightly initiated--- If respondents considered that they were not involved in case and they had been falsely implicated then they could agitate their pleas of innocence before Trial Court and could seek their pre-trial or pending trial acquittal as provided under S.249-A or S.265-K, Cr.P.C. as the case was--- High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside the order passed by Trial Court as there was material impropriety in that order regarding definition of smuggling of betel nuts and case was remanded to Trial Court for decision afresh---Revision was allowed, in circumstances.
Salooka Steels Ltd. v. Director General, Coast Guard Pakistan PLD 1981 Quetta 1; Collector of Customs v. Minhaj-ud-Din and another 2010 PTD (Trib.) 160; Zafar Ahmed Phul v. The State 1981 PCr.LJ 66; Amanullah Khan v. Shabbir Hussain, SHO and another 1984 Cr.LJ 3096(1); Mrs. Haim Tabbara v. Director General, Pakistan Coast Guard PLD 1980 Kar. 44; Shabbir Ahmed Shah v. Pakistan PLD 1979 Kar. 68 and The State v. Muhammad Irfan and others 1987 PCr.LJ 325 ref.
ORDER
FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE:---.---
Since all the above Special Criminal Revision Applications are connected, therefore, it is advisable that all these special criminal revision applications should be disposed of by one and the same order.
2. In these matters, the applicant feels aggrieved with the impugned order, whereby the learned Special Judge has declared the criminal proceedings before the Court of Special Judge (Customs and Taxation) as corum-non-judice and the challan was returned for adjudication before the proper forum.
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492