' ALI NAWAZ BUDHANI, J.-This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner Haji Meharban. The petition was dismissed on 29th November, 1983 by our short order for the reasons to be recorded later on. Following are the reasons for the same.
2. The facts which relate to and arise out of the petition are that on 28th December, 1973 at 9-30 a. m. One truck having No, H. D. B.-1664 a public carrier was intercepted at Sohrab Goth, Karachi on Super Highway and 84 bags of betelnuts weighing 250 maunds were secured by the Subedar and other officers of the Coastal Guards. The driVer and the conductor of the truck were arrested and the goods were taken to Head Quarters, Pakistan Coastal Guards. Accordingly an, F. I. R. Was registered against the two arrested persons under section 156 (8) (89); Customs Act, 1969. On 31st December, 1973 a charge-sheet was filed before the Special Judge, Customs and Taxation, Karachi where the present petitioner Haji Meharban was shown as an absconder. However, the petitioner who was shown as absconder because aware of the case and filed an application before the respondent No, 2 i,e, Deputy Collector of Customs (Preventive) Customs House, Karachi giving all the details and objected to the seizure and claimed the betelnuts. The Customs Officer by an order, dated 9th November, 1974 confiscated the betelnuts and imposed the personal penalty of Rs, 1,00,000 on the petitioner. The petitioner then filed an appeal against the said order and in the appeal the personal penalty of the petitioner was reduced to Rs, 50,000 only. The revision was filed by the petitioner before respondent No, 1 which was dismissed with modification that the penalty on the driver, cleaner and bus owner was reduced to Rs, 2,000 whereas the penalty on the petitioner remained the same and the betelnuts were confiscated.
3. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs :-
(i) to declare that the seizure of the betelnuts in 84 bags being 215 maunds, by the staff of respondent No, 4 was without lawful authority and is of no legal effect and direct the respondent No, 4 to return the goods to the petitioner.
(ii) to declare that the show-cause notice, dated 24th January, 1974 marked 'A'. The adjudication order of respondent No, 2, dated 9th April, 1974 marked 'B', the order in appeal of respondent No, 3, dated 30th May, 1975 marked 'D-1' and the order in revision by respondent No, 1, dated 24th December, 1975 marked `E,-1' are without authority of law and of no legal effect;
(iii) to direct the respondents Nos. 1 and 4 to return the seized betelnuts or its price, if sold by auction or otherwise, to the petitioner.
4. Mr. Muzaffar Hussain Advocate argued the case of the petitioner while on the side of the Customs Department Mr. Habibur Reitman Advocate appeared.
5. The contentions of the petitioner are that the consignment was purchased at Customs Auction at Hyderabad and the same was transported to Quetta. The purchase was made in auction in the month of May, 1972. This plea was rejected by the Collector of Customs who passed the impugned order.
6. Mr. Muzaffar Hussain submitted that the petitioner, the driver of the truck and the cleaner was acquitted by the judgment, dated 27th July, 1974 of the Special Judge, Customs and Taxation, Karachi, The following order is passed by the learned Special Judge :- "Since the betelnuts seized are not found to be smuggled, the question of accused being in possession of and carrying smuggled betelnuts, does not arise. In the result, the accused are acquitted. Their bail bonds are cancelled."
' According to the learned counsel this judgment is binding on the Customs Officer. The judgment of the learned Special Judge is at Annexure 'C' and the same is perused. The benefit of doubt is given to the accused persons. However, the judgment is not binding in respect of the commodity i. e. The betelnuts being smuggled. Clearly the market of betelnuts is at Karachi. The betelnuts after their purchase should have been brought to Karachi. This is not so in the instant case. Instead the betelnuts are taken to Quetta and after a lapse of two years they are brought to Karachi in a truck where they are caught and seized under section 171 of the Customs Act, 1969. The presumption was that the same were smuggled and the Customs Officer had a reasonable ground to intercept and secure the betelnuts at Sohrab Goth. The Customs Officer did have the valid reasons to believe as such for the seizure of the betelnuts in question. The Special Judge, gave 'benefit of doubt', so far the punishment of the driver and cleaner is concerned, but so far confiscation of the property is concerned, the Judgment was not binding on the Customs Officer.
6. The next submission made by the learned counsel is that the section 171 of the Customs Act, 1969 was not complied with by the Customs Officer. The betelnuts were seized under section 168 of the Customs Act. Relevant part of the section 168, is as under :- "The appropriate officer may seize any goods liable to confiscation under this act, and where it is not practicable to seize any such goods, he may serve on the owner of the goods or any person holding them in his possession or charge an order that he shall not remove, part with, or otherwise deal with the goods except with the previous permission of such officer."
' The relevant portion of section 171 is as under :- "When anything is seized, or any person is arrested under this Act, the officer or other person making such seizure or arrest shall, as soon as may be, inform in writing the person so arrested or the person from whose possession the things are seized of the grounds of such seizure or arrest."
7. It is argued firstly that the goods were seized not by an appropriate officer, secondly that the formalities as contemplated under section 168 and section 171 of the Customs Act, 1969, were not complied with. It may be pointed out that under section 168 show-cause notice was given on 24th January, 1974 and the section was complied with. Those who were arrested under section 171, the reasons for their arrest were given in writing by the Customs Officer. This is clear at Annexure 'B' i. e.
The order passed by the Deputy Collector of Customs Mr. S. N. H. Zaidi. We are referred to PLD 1981 Kar. 250, a judgment written by Zafar Hussain Mirza, J. In a Criminal Appeal where the facts are distinguishable from the facts of this case. The judgment does not help the petitioner.
8. The second portion of the arguments is that the "appropriate officer" in this case would not be Subedar attached to the Customs Department. For this we are referred to Notification No, 30(1)/73, dated 3rd January, 1973. The notification is as under :- "S. R.
0. 30(1)173.-In exercise of the powers conferred by section 6 of the Customs Act, 1969 (IV of 1969), the Central Board of Revenue is pleased to entrust the functions of officers of Customs under sections 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, subsections (1), (3) and (4) of section 168, sections 169 and 171 of the said Act to all Officers of the Coast Guards not below the rank of Junior Commissioned Officer within their respective " jurisdictions."
9. The check which was organised by the Customs on receipt of the information at Sohrab Goth was headed by Pakistan Coastal Guards which was according to the available record was headed legally, by the authorised officer. Whether Subedar Akram was a Commissioned Officer or not or whether Subedar Akram was acting under the orders of the Commissioned Officer is not known as such it is presumed that the goods were seized by an appropriate officer. This leads us to the pure facts and it is not pointed out to us specifically that the search was held and the goods were seized by a non-Commissioned Officer. The objection of the learned counsel fails in view of this situation.
10. The next point argued at length was that Sohrab Goth situated on Super Highway near Karachi was not a coastal area but was a part of Karachi port and as such the entire search with regard to the goods confiscated was illegal and ultra vires. We may refer to the authority reported in PLD 1978 Kar.
1110. In this authority the reference is made to Pakistan Coast Guards Act, 1973. Section 14 of the said act carries the definition of Coastal Area. The definition is as under: "Southern strip of the province of Baluchistan along and astride the existing road emanating from the Pak-Iran Border connecting the towns of Man-Turbat-Hoshat-Bazdar-Bela-Uthal, to Hub River (Bundmurad) and also the southern area of the province of Sind along and astride the line and road "from Sub-River (3undmurad)- Gadap-Sari-Sing-Thano Bulakhan-Bano-Mirpur Bathano- Jatti to the Arabian Sea but excluding the limits of any port-in those areas.-
11. The exclusion of limits of any port in those areas resulted into lively discourse in the said judgment referred above. The popular meaning of the word "port" has been given in the Shorter Exford Dictionary, 3rd Edition, page 1631 as follows "the place by the shore where the ships may run in for shelter from storm of a local and unload a harbour ; a haven ; a town possessing a harbour and which vessels resort to load and unload, from which they start or at which they finish their voyage ; specifically a place where customs officers are stationed to supervise the entry of goods."
' In the Stroud's "Judicial Dictionary of words and phrases", 4th Edition, 1974, Volume 4, page 2053 the various meanings of the word "port" are given. In its natural meaning, it is a place where ships may conveniently come for safety against storm or a place where ships may load and unload cargo or take passengers. It was held in this authority that the word "port" under section 14 (1) of the Coast Guards Act is to be interpreted in its ordinary popular sense as meaning, the place intended for landing and shipment of goods and passengers. Had the lagislature intended to give a different meaning to the word "port" in the Coast Guards Act, nothing could have been easier than to define the word port to mean "customs port" as defined in the Customs Act, 1969 or even a port as defined in the Ports Act, 1908. Similarly, the words "limits of the port" in their ordinary popular or commercial sense mean, the land comprised within the boundary of the port area and includes the docks, quays, sheds, open spaces, warehouses, etc. Which are usually and customarily used in connection with loading and unloading of goods or passengers or for customs purposes. It would be unreasonable to suggest that the place in dispute in the instant Petition namely. Super Highway could be included B in the definition of port. The Super Highway has no connection with ships or shipment goods or passengers, and hence it is not a part of Karachi Port, but it is coastal area where the Coast Guards can operate.
12. We, therefore, are in respectful agreement with his Lordship Mr. I. Mahmood, J. In respect of the authority quoted above.
13. We have given anxious thought to the present petition and conclude that the same has no force. There are sufficient grounds to consider the betelnuts to be smuggled goods and that the Special Judge, Customs and Taxation's judgment is not binding on the Customs Officer. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Under the circumstances no order as to costs is made.