The applicant has applied for the quashment of the proceed ings pending against him in the Court of the First Class Magistrate, Thatta, under section 156 (89) of the Customs Act, 1969. They came to be instituted upon a challan submitted by A. S. I. Thatta on 27th March 1971 after he secured cloth worth Rs. 3,838 alleged to be smuggled.
2. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that no cognizance could be taken on a challan and for this he relies on section 192(2) of the Customs Act. Again he contends that having regard to the value of the cloth seized, which is less than Rs. 5,000, no prosecution could have been launched against the applicant as he could only be dealt with by the Customs Authorities under section 156(89) of the Customs Act. In support of the first contention he relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State v. Hamtho (Petition No. K-12/68) decided on 17th September 1968, in which it was held as under "Having examined the relevant provisions of the Land Customs Act, and the Sea Customs Act, we are unable to agree with this contention. 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 befollowed and not the ordinary procedure. The learned counsel has not been able to show us any provision in the Sea Customs Act authorising police officer to send up persons accused of contraventions of the provisions of the Sea Customs Act for trial under a challan under the Criminal Procedure Code."
3. The learned counsel for the applicant states that there is no provision to empower a police officer to investigate the contravention of the provisions of the re-enacted Customs Act and the present case is concerned on all fours by the observations of the Supreme Court,
4. Mr. Manzoor Hussain, the learned counsel for the State concedes to the above legal position and states that the proceed ings should be quashed. For the reason that the challan was incompetently filed I would quash the proceedings. The revision is accordingly allowed. .