prevention of smuggling act case law.

**کیس:**

کیس کا تعلق "پریونشن آف اسموگلنگ ایکٹ، 1977" سے ہے۔ اینٹی نارکوٹکس فورس (ANF) نے معلومات فراہم کی کہ کچھ ملزمان نے سمگلنگ کے ذریعے جائداد حاصل کی ہے۔ خصوصی جج نے ملزمان کو جائداد کی ضبطگی کے احکام جاری کیے، لیکن ملزمان کو ایک متبادل دیا کہ وہ جائداد کی مارکیٹ ویلیو کے برابر جرمانہ ادا کریں۔

ملزمان نے اس فیصلے کے خلاف اپیل دائر کی، جس میں کہا گیا کہ اینٹی نارکوٹکس فورس کو "پریشان" تسلیم کر کے اپیل کرنے کا حق دیا جائے۔ خصوصی اپیلیٹ کورٹ نے اپیل کو ناقابل قبول قرار دیا، اور پشاور ہائی کورٹ نے بھی اس فیصلے کی توثیق کی۔

**فیصلہ:**

سپریم کورٹ نے فیصلہ دیا کہ اینٹی نارکوٹکس فورس کو "پریشان" نہیں سمجھا جا سکتا کیونکہ اس نے کوئی قانونی نقصان نہیں اٹھایا بلکہ صرف فیصلے سے نالاں تھی۔ عدالت نے اس نتیجے پر پہنچا کہ سیکشن 43 کے تحت اپیل کا حق صرف انہیں دیا جا سکتا ہے جن کے حقوق متاثر ہوئے ہوں۔ اس کے علاوہ، عدالت نے اس بات پر زور دیا کہ قانونی خامیوں کو دور کرنے کے لیے پارلیمنٹ کو قانون میں ترمیم کرنی چاہیے تاکہ ریاست یا حکومت کو بھی اپیل کا حق فراہم کیا جا سکے۔

لہذا، سپریم کورٹ نے اینٹی نارکوٹکس فورس کی اپیل مسترد کر دی اور سفارش کی کہ قانون میں مناسب تبدیلیاں کی جائیں۔

**پریونشن آف اسموگلنگ ایکٹ، 1977** (Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1977) پاکستان کا ایک قانونی فریم ورک ہے جو سمگلنگ کے خلاف کارروائی کے لیے وضع کیا گیا ہے۔ اس قانون کی اہم تفصیلات درج ذیل ہیں:

1. **مقصد:** اس قانون کا مقصد سمگلنگ اور غیر قانونی تجارت کو روکنا ہے، خاص طور پر ایسی اشیاء جو کہ غیر قانونی طور پر ملک میں لائی گئی ہوں۔

2. **خسارہ اور ضبطگی:** اگر کسی پراپرٹی کو سمگلنگ کے ذریعے حاصل کیا گیا ہو، تو اس قانون کے تحت متعلقہ جج اس پراپرٹی کو ضبط کرنے کا حکم دے سکتا ہے۔ قانون کی دفعات کے تحت، ایسے مال کی ضبطگی کی جاتی ہے جو سمگلنگ کے ذریعے حاصل کیا گیا ہو۔

3. **پروسیجر:**

- **سیکشن 31:** اس کے تحت، جج سمگلنگ سے متعلق معلومات پر نوٹس جاری کرتا ہے اور ملزمان کو اپنے دفاع میں جواب دینے کا موقع فراہم کرتا ہے۔

- **سیکشن 32:** جج اس بات کا تعین کرتا ہے کہ آیا پراپرٹی سمگلنگ کے ذریعے حاصل کی گئی ہے یا نہیں اور فیصلہ صادر کرتا ہے۔

- **سیکشن 34:** اگر پراپرٹی کو ضبط کرنا مشکل ہو، تو ملزمان کو اس کی قیمت ادا کرنے کا آپشن دیا جاتا ہے۔

4. **اپیل:**

- **سیکشن 43:** اس دفعہ کے تحت، "پریشان" شخص (جو قانونی طور پر متاثر ہوا ہو) خصوصی اپیلیٹ کورٹ میں اپیل دائر کر سکتا ہے۔

یہ قانون سمگلنگ سے نمٹنے اور غیر قانونی سرگرمیوں کو روکنے کے لیے اقدامات فراہم کرتا ہے اور ان سے متعلقہ قانونی کارروائیوں کے لیے ایک فریم ورک تیار کرتا ہے۔

SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

Present:

Mr. Justice Munib Akhtar

Mr. Justice Shahid Waheed

Ms. Justice Musarrat Hilali

Civil Appeal No.277 of 2014

(On appeal against the judgment

dated 30.05.2012 passed by the

Peshawar High Court, Peshawar

in W.P.1770/2005).

The State through A.N.F., Rawalpindi

…Appellant(s)

Versus

Obaid Khan (decd) through LRs & others

…Respondent(s)

For the Appellant(s)

: Mr. Inaam Amin Minhas, Special

Prosecutor General, ANF

Ch. Ehtisham ul Haq, Special

Prosecutor NAB

Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR

For the Respondent(s)

: Mr. Saleem Shah Hoti, ASC

Date of Hearing

: 23.11.2023

JUDGMENT

Shahid Waheed, J: We granted leave for this appeal as it

involves a question that has not been addressed by this

Court before. The question for the decision is short, but its

legal import is significant and merits an incisive

examination of the Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1977 (the

Act). The question is whether the complainant,

particularly the Anti-Narcotic Force, can be considered a

“person aggrieved” to prefer an appeal under section 43 of

the Act before the Special Appellate Court.

A thumbnail sketch of the sequence of facts

may be in place to fully comprehend the moot question.

C.A.277/2014

On the 28th of April, 1998, the Anti Narcotic Force,

established under the Anti Narcotic Force Act, 1997,

furnished information to the Special Judge (Central),

Customs, Taxation and Anti Smuggling in Peshawar. The

information stated that the private respondents (accused)

had specific properties suspected of being acquired

through smuggling. In response, the Special Judge issued

a notice under Section 31 of the Act, calling on the

accused to explain why the properties should not be

declared as acquired through smuggling. The accused

were also required under section 31(2) of the Act to

indicate the source of their income, the income and assets

used to acquire the properties and provide evidence to

refute the complaint against them. The accused responded

by denying the allegations against them. After reviewing

the explanation and evidence presented and allowing the

accused to be heard, the Special Judge recorded his

finding on the 15th of January, 2004, that the accused

had acquired up to 40% of the alleged properties through

smuggling. The Special Judge, thus, under Section 32 of

the Act, declared that the share of the properties acquired

by smuggling stood forfeited to the Federal Government,

while the share of properties acquired through legitimate

means belonged to the accused. Since the share of the

accused could not be easily separated, they were given the

option to pay a fine equivalent to the market value of the

property prevalent at the time, which was Rs.9,461,200,

C.A.277/2014

in lieu of forfeiture of that part of the property under

section 34 of the Act. Through the Deputy Attorney

General for Pakistan, the State filed an appeal under

section 43 of the Act against the order of the Special

Judge before the Special Appellate Court. The accused

objected to the maintainability of the appeal under section

43 of the Act, citing the precedent set by Haji Iqbal Shah,1

which stated that the right of appeal under section 43 of

the Act was restricted to a “person” who did not include

the State. Since the Peshawar High Court Division Bench

had approved this precedent, the Special Appellate Court

found it binding. It dismissed the appeal as being not

maintainable by judgment dated 21st of March, 2005. The

State, the Government of Pakistan, and the Anti Narcotic

Force then jointly filed a petition under Article 199 of the

Constitution in the Peshawar High Court seeking an

order, like a writ of certiorari, to quash the above-stated

orders. The High Court upheld the view of the Special

Appellate Court and dismissed the petition by its order

dated 30th of May, 2012.2

Given the facts, the question at hand appears

to depend entirely on the true construction of section 43 of

the Act. Before we go any further, it is important to

remember one general principle: the right of appeal is a

1 Anti Narcotics Force v. Haji Iqbal Shah [1999 P.Cr.L.J 1125].

2 Federal Government v. Obaid Khan [2012 P.Cr.L.J 1765].

C.A.277/2014

creation of a statute, and no such right can be implied.3

We now proceed to consider the language of section 43 of

the Act. This section enacts that “any person aggrieved by

an order of the Special Judge passed under section 31,

section 32 or section 34 may, within thirty days from the

date of such order, prefer an appeal before the Special

Appellate Court whose decision thereon shall be final.” The

words “person aggrieved” seems to be the governing

words, and show that the object of the legislature is to give

an appeal where the legal right of the person is infringed

and he has suffered a legal wrong or injury, in the sense

that his interest, recognised by law, has been prejudicially

and directly affected by order of the Special Judge passed

under section 31, 32 or 34 of the Act. To perfect the

understanding of this point, we deem it appropirate to

quote here the remarks made by James L. J. in Re

Sidebotham.4 He said, ‘the words “person aggrieved” do

not really mean a man who is disappointed of a benefit

which he might have received if some other order had been

made. A “person aggrieved” must be a man who has

suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision

has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of

something, or wrongfully refused him something, or

wrongfully affected his title to something.’ However, in the

present case, it is said that the Anti Narcotic Force, being

3 Benson v. Northern Ireland Road Transport Board [(1942) All E.R

465)].

4 Re Sidebotham [(1880) 14 Ch. D. 458]

C.A.277/2014

the complainant, was “aggrieved” as it had informed the

Special Judge that the properties were acquired by

smuggling, which was erroneously found not true by the

Special Judge. We are not disposed to accept that. A plain

reading of the Act’s scheme, particularly section 31,

clarifies that the Special Judge may receive information

(complaint) from ‘any person’. In this case, as discussed

above, 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. The

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 is 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 appears

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, its

no 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

C.A.277/2014

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.5 As a result, its appeal was rightly held to be

not maintainable. We accordingly dismiss this appeal.

Before parting, we are compelled to observe in

light of the points explained in the preceding paragraphs

that serious procedural and substantive lacunas exist in

the Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1977, which, in our

opinion, necessitates Parliament’s intervention to amend

the law. 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. It is further to be

noted that we examined the practices and statutes

pertaining to property forfeiture resulting from criminal

activity in other jurisdictions. In our research, we found a

consistent provision expressly providing the right to the

State or Government to appeal against an order of a court

5 The Queen v. The Keepers of the Peace and Justices of the County

of London [(1890) 25 QBD 357], and

R v. London Justices, Ex-parte Fulham Vestry [(1886-90) All E.R

537].

C.A.277/2014

if it is not satisfied by the outcome in almost all

jurisdictions.6 Therefore, we deem it appropriate to refer

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.

The Registrar of this Court shall send a copy of

this judgment to the Hon’ble Chairperson of the Law and

Justice Commission, Attorney General for Pakistan and

Secretary Law to Government of Pakistan for their

information and appropriate action.

Judge

Islamabad

23.11.2023

“APPROVED FOR REPORTING”

Rashid /Agha M. Furqan

6 Section 490.1(3) of Criminal Code, R.S.C, c.C-46 (Canada),

1985,

Section 303s of Proceeds of Crime Act (UK), 2002,

Rule 32.2 of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (United States of

America), and

Section 142(5) of Confiscation Act (Australia), 1997.

2024 SCP 181

C.A.277/2014

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.