' Mrs. Ismat Mehdi, Advocate on behalf of State has filed this Revision application impugning judgment, dated 7-5-1984 on the ground that the sentence imposed by the trial Court is not consistent with the minimum requirement of law.
' Briefly stated the relevant facts giving rise to this Revision application are that Shaikh Salahuddin, respondent was arrested at Karachi Airport on 3-4-1980 at about 1-30 p.m. When his unaccompanied baggage was scrutinised by the Customs Officer and 69 pieces of silver weighing about 46 Kilograms were found concealed in the false bottom of the suitcase. He had presented baggage declaration Form No, 21656/80 alongwith Form 'A' No, 2866/A/80-1I, dated 24-3-1980 for the clearance of his unaccompanied baggage consisting of three packets which were covered by Airway Bill No, 229-11375361 issued by the Kuwait Airline. After completion of necessary formalities challan was presented in the Court. In the trial Court prosecution examined Mohammad Sidik Sadik, Appraiser, who deposed about valuation of goods in question. Thereafter, respondent pleaded guilty and placed himself at the mercy of the Court. Consequently by the impugned judgment he was convicted for offence under section 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act, 1969 and sentenced till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs, 1,00,000 in default of the payment R. I. For one year.
' Contention of the learned counsel for the State is that silver has been declared by the Government as an item essential to the life of community, vide Notification of the S. R.
0. No, 117(1)/83, dated 12th February, 1983. It is further submitted that under section 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act, 1969 under which respondent is convicted and sentenced as stated above, minimum sentence prescribed is not less than five years and awarding sentence of whipping if the goods in question as contemplated in proviso thereto are essential to the life of community as notified by the Government. Learned counsel has shown me notification mentioned in the book General Manual of Customs Laws declaring silver as goods essential to the life of community. Since the question agitated the mind whether intention of the Government manifested in the notification stated above was to confine goods and articles mentioned therein as essential to the life of community to the illegal export of such goods or illegal import thereof were also included. Notice was issued to the learned D. A.-G. And Messrs A. Q. Halepota, Muzaffar Hussain and Z. U. Abmad.
' I have heard the learned counsel appearing in this case on several dates. Mr. Liaquat Merchant D.
A.-G. Got in touch with the Customs Authorities and has produced the copy of letter addressed to him from Secretary (Customs II) of Central Board of Revenue. This letter is dated 6th January, 1986.
' Question mooted in the Court was that goods which have been specified by the Government to he essential to the life of community in the notification stated above are foodgrains of all sorts in any form, drugs and medicines, all sorts, the export of which is prohibited or restricted by any law for the time being in force, gold and silver, excluding bona fide personal jewellery of a passenger, edible oils, kerosene and petroleum products and fertilizers. Point had become moot for the reason that against item No, 2 that is drugs and medicines it has been mentioned in the notification specifically, "export of which is prohibited or restricted by any law for the time being in force". View was projected in the Court that in such circumstances the intention was to provide minimum punishment of five years in the case in which there was export of goods declared by the Government to be essential to the life of community and for other cases in which there is illegal import of such goods, requirement of minimum sentence would not apply and it was open to the Court to award sentence keeping in view the magnitude of offence and other peculiar circumstances of that individual case. Controversy as come to an end because it is stated in the letter of C. B. R., dated 6th January, 1986 that requirement of minimum sentence of five years under section 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act, 1969 is to be read in conjunction with the word "smuggling" as I defined under section 2(s) of the said Act, which would cover automatically smuggling in and smuggling out of the goods which have been declared to be essential to the life of the community by the Government. It is further clarified in the said letter that there appeared to be some confusio A due to the use of word "export" in respect of Drugs and Medicines at Serial No, 2 of the S. R.
0. But this would apply to only those Drugs and Medicines as declared to be essential to the life of community, export of which is prohibited or restricted. On the question of interpretation in order to ascertain the -intention of the Legislature, authoritative opinion of Central Board of Revenue expressed in the letter is more than enough. Consequently the controversy comes to an end.
' Now so far the proceedings in the trial Court from which this Revision arises are concerned, it appears that at the time when respondent pleaded guilty, he was not informed by the trial Court that if he pleaded guilty for the offence mentioned above under the law the minimum requirement was that he would be sentenced to for not less than five years and whipping. Had it been done most probably respondent would not have pleaded guilty. It would be pertinent to mention here that after pleading guilty he was sentenced till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs, 1,00,000. In such circumstances, I am of the view that whole proceedings before the trial Court are tainted with illegality and the trial Court should have explained to the respondent the correct legal position with regard to the requirement of minimum sentence and then asked him if he is prepared to plead guilty or not, I, therefore, set aside the conviction and sentence of the respondent and remand the case back to the trial Court for de novo proceedings strictly according to law. Revision is allowed.