The applicant herein is facing trial in the Court of Special Judge (Customs and Taxation), Karachi under section 156(1), clause 89 of the Customs Act.
2. The allegations of the prosecution are that in consequence of informa--tion received by the authorities the house in occupation of the applicant was -raided by the Customs Authorities in his presence and 320 sets of National Panasonic Gar Stereo CX-1000, E. N. W. Of the value of Rs. 1,92,000 were secured. According to the charge-sheet these are Car Cassettes of foreign origin. The goods were seized and the applicant was taken into custody as he could not produce evidence of lawful possession of these foreign goods.
3. The applicant has in the present revision challenged the proceedings yen against him and pending in the trial Court on the ground that no once is made out from the allegations contained in the charge as the goods secured from the custody of the applicant are not smuggled goods for the reason that the latest Notification issued by the. Government under section 2(s) of the Customs Act, 1969, does not cover the goods in question. In this behalf my attention has been invited to Notification S. R. O. 1426, ---1---/73 dated 5-10-1973 issued by the Central Board of Revenue on behalf of the Federal Government which is the ruling Notification under section 2(s) and subsection
(2) of section 156 of the Customs Act, 1969, A D. B. Of this Court in Niaz Ahmed v. State (PLD 1978 Kar. 774), has taken the view that the offence of "smuggling" as defined in section 2(s) of the Customs Act can be committed only if the goods expressly mentioned in section 2(s) or any other goods notified thereunder by the Government are brought into or taken out of Pakistan, in breach of any prohibition or by evading payment of Customs duty leviable thereon. The offence charged against the applicant can only be established if it is shown that the goods involved were smuggled goods. Therefore if the person who imported these goods is not liable for smuggling, the person found in possession of these goods cannot be said to be in possession of smuggled goods.
4. Mrs. Salima Nasiruddin, the learned counsel for the State very fairly concedes that the goods in this case do not fall within the purview of the Notification under section 2(s) and very fairly concedes to and does not oppose the present revision.
5. In the result for the foregoing reasons I allow this revision and quash the proceedings against the applicant pending in the trial Court. This will however not in any way prejudice any other proceedings that the Customs Authorities deem fit to take in respect of the goods against the applicant or any other concerned persons under the provisions of the Customs Act.