1. ' MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, J.-A common question of law is involved in all these cases, and therefore, they have been heard together, and are disposed of by this single consolidated judgment.
2. ' A common plea has been raised in all the above cases that the officials of the Customs/Sales Tax Department are not empowered under the law to register F.I.R., conduct investigation/inquiry in pursuance thereof and launch prosecution against the petitioners in the Court of learned Special Judge (Customs and Taxation) Karachi, and consequently, the cognizance taken by the learned Special Judge (Customs and Taxation) Karachi, in pursuance thereof is not warranted in law and the F.I.R. So registered, inquiry/investigation conducted, the report submitted before the learned Special Judge (Customs and Taxation) Karachi, and the proceedings pending in the Court of learned Special Judge (Customs and Taxation) Karachi, are illegal, and are liable to be quashed.
3. ' We have heard Messrs Sohail Muzaffar, Miss Fouzia Rasheed, Muhammad Farooq, Advocates for the Petitioners, Mr. S. Ziauddin Nasir Standing counsel for the State and Mr. Raja M. Iqbal, learned counsel for the other Respondents.
4. ' The issues raised in these cases came for consideration before a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court in the case of Director. Investigation and Intelligence Customs, Excise and Sales Tax v. Muhammad Nawaz PLD 2003 Lahore 493. The learned Judges of the Lahore High Court examined all the relevant provisions of law germane to the issue and the contentions raised on behalf of the Customs/Sales Tax Department and the Petitioners. The learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court while hearing the Petitions and Criminal Revision Applications also heard Appeal against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in the case of Muhammad Nawaz and another v. State PLD 1999 Lahore 18, whereby the contentions raised against the legality and validity of the FIRs and the consequent proceedings in the Court of learned Special Judge (Customs and Taxation) were accepted and the proceedings were -quashed. The learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court dismissed the Petitions and Criminal Revision Applications while allowed Intra-Court Appeal and Judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in the case cited above, was set aside.
5. ' Learned Judges of the Lahore High Court held as follows:-- "Reports regarding offences can be lodged and Registers of arrest and detention can be maintained by the officers under the afore-referred, Special Laws. The reports which are registered by the concerned Departments under the Customs Act or the Sales Tax Act are the first reports with regard to offences under these laws, and in this regard certain officers have been authorized by the Central Board of Revenue through a notification. These reports are not F.I.Rs, which are registered at the Police Stations. These are reports in the generic sense. These reports are neither conclusive nor an indictment and no prejudice is caused. These are merely the first steps which set the machinery of law in motion."
6. "With minor variations and application of provisions of Cr.P.C. Qua arrest, almost similar provisions have been laid down in the Sales Tax Act, 1990. Both provide for maintaining of a Register of Arrest and Detention. The Central Board of Revenue has been authorized under section 3 read with section 4 of the Customs Act to notify such officers to 'exercise such powers and discharge such duties' as are specified in the notification to be issued. In exercise of those powers, the. C.B.R from time to time, through Notifications/SROs. Has been authorizing various officers of the Customs Department and the Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation (Customs and Excise), of the Pakistan Army, of the West Pakistan Rangers and of the Pakistan Navy to exercise powers and discharge duties under the Customs Act."
7. "The criminal case vide F.I.R. No,6 of 1998 was registered by the said Directorate at Lahore on the complaint of Superintendent Customs and Intelligence who was officer authorized in terms of the Notification quoted above. There was, therefore, no illegality in the registration of case under the Customs Act and the order of the Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation (Customs and Excise), dated 5-3-1994 which was issued under S.R.O. 388(1)/82, dated 22nd April, 1982 could not have been declared to have been issued without lawful authority or without any backing of law.
8. Similarly, under the Sales Tax Act, any Officer of Sales Tax not below` the rank of an Assistant Collector of Sales Tax or any officer of equal rank authorized by the Central Board of Revenue (section 37-A) can arrest a person for an offence under the said Act. The learned Judge, we may observe with respect, was not properly assisted and a settled principle of law that the cases under the Special Law have to be dealt with investigated and tried under the special procedure laid down therein was overlooked. The law laid down in The State v. Hamtho (1971 SCMR 686) appears to have skipped the attention of the said Court wherein at page 687 it was held that "it is now well-settled that where a statute has created a special offence and lays down a special procedure for the trial of such offence, it is that procedure that must be followed and not the ordinary procedure."
9. Furthermore even if there was some irregularity at the investigation stage, the same could not affect the jurisdiction of the Special Court. In this regard the ratio laid down in Noorul Islam v. The State (1986 SCMR 1836) was not brought to the notice of the said learned Judge wherein it was held as under:-- "Suffice it to say that the proposition of law is well settled that an illegality committed in the course of investigation does not affect the competence and the jurisdiction of the Court. The fact that the leaned trial Court had the requisite jurisdiction in the matter was not disputed by the learned counsel."
10. ' We fully agree with the reasons recorded by the learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court cited above and subscribe to the views and findings contained in the cited judgment. Respectfully agreeing with the findings of learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, it is held that, for the reasons recorded in the cited judgment the Petitions are without substance which stand dismissed alongwith the listed applications.