Law: Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1977

Section: 43

1. Prevention of Smuggling Act (XII of 1977)---

----S. 43---Filing of appeal before the Special Appellate Court---"Person aggrieved"---Scope---Whether the complainant, particularly the Anti-Narcotic Force, can be considered a "person aggrieved" to prefer an appeal under section 43 of the Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1977 ('the Act') before the Special Appellate Court---Held, that in the present case the informer was the Anti-Narcotic Force--After the information was conveyed to the Special Judge, the informer had no further role, as there was no statutory duty for the informer to appear before the Special Judge nor to produce evidence supporting the information---Informer was also not required to file a written statement in response to the accused's position, and the Special Judge was not required to adjudicate between the accused and the informer---Quite the contrary, after receiving the information, the matter entirely had become one between the Special Judge and the accused---This was so because, under Section 33 of the Act, the accused bears the burden of proving that any property specified in a notice under Section 31 is not acquired through smuggling--It appeared that it was for this reason the Anti-Narcotic Force, apart from the information presented to the Special Judge, did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence---At that, none of its legal right was infringed, and it had suffered no legal wrong or injury---In the circumstances, the Anti-Narcotic Force, which could not succeed in getting a forfeiture order against all the properties of the accused, could be said, to be annoyed by the findings of the Special Judge---It could also feel that what was considered a breach of law was wrongly held to be not a breach of law by the Special Judge---Despite all this, the Anti Narcotic Force could not be described as a person aggrieved rather as a person annoyed at best, and so, was not entitled to prefer an appeal against the Special Judge's order under section 43 of the Act---As a result, appeal filed by the Anti-Narcotics Force was rightly held to be not maintainable---Supreme Court observed that the Act does not provide any room for rectification of an incorrect order, as it is only a "person aggrieved" who may appeal against an order of the Special Judge under section 43, which, in essence, renders the order in favour of the accused final----Supreme Court referred the matter to Parliament to consider providing the State or Government the right of appeal under section 43 by amending the Act, in order to achieve its true objective and intended purpose---Appeal was dismissed.

Anti Narcotics Force v. Haji Iqbal Shah 1999 PCr.LJ 1125 and Federal Government v. Obaid Khan 2012 PCr.LJ 1765 ref.