SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.-I. Leave to appeal was granted to examine whether goods not notified or specified under sub-clause (a) of clause (s) section 2 of the Customs Act, 1969 could at all be said to be smuggled and the person allegedly in possession of it proceeded against under section 156(1), clauses (77) and (89) read with section 178 of the Customs Act.
2. The facts giving rise of this appeal are that on the 30th October, 1977, a Mercedez Benz Car found parked outside the house of Khalid Munnef was seized by Customs Inspector as a smuggled property. During the investigation it was found that one Sajjad Hussain, co-accused of the appellant, had got it registered at Peshawar on It July, 1975 in the fictitious name of Salim Khan on the basis of a forged No Objection Certificate from the Customs Authority. It was then sold or mortgaged to various persons at various stages, got reregistered at Lahore in the name of a fictitious person Agha Naseer Ahmad, finally to be recovered from Khalid Munnef. The role attributed to the appellant is that at one stage he became purchaser of it along with another person, persuaded Khalid Munnef to purchase it and also attested as a witness purchase document. The appellant along with i.e others associates is facing a trial before the Special Judge Customs Lahore under section 156(1) (77) and (89) read with section 178 of the Customs Act.
3. The appellant filed a petition under section 561-A of Criminal procedure Code read with section 185-F of the Customs Act seeking quash ment of pending proceedings on the ground that the charge of smuggling is misconceived because even on the facts admitted or disclosed, the car did not appear to be smuggled, that the seizure itself was bad in law and the trial could not be sustained or continued on the basis of such a seizure. On facts it was contended that the appellant played no role and could not be criminally prosecuted for whatever was alleged against him i.e. Attesting a transfer document.
4. The learned Judge in the High Court considered all the objections taken to the trial including the question of local jurisdiction of the Special Court and rejected the petition for quash ment of the case.
5. As pointed out leave to appeal was granted only to examine whether in the absence of a specific notification the car could be taken to be smuggled and its possession could entail prosecution before the Special Judge. It is not denied that there is no notification under sub-clause (a) of section 2(s) of Customs Act to cover the Mercedez Car which has been dealt with by the appellant.
The learned Judge dealt with this question in the following words: "It is an admitted fact that car is not mentioned in the notification issued by the Federal Government under section 2(s) of the Customs Act, but if the prosecution is able to prove that the car had been brought into Pakistan by any route other than a route declared under section 9 or 10 or from any place other than Customs-Station then the case would be covered under the definition of 'smuggled car' and would fall under section 2(s) (b) of the Act. Five places had been notified under sections 9 and 10 of the Customs Act and it should not be difficult for the prosecution to prove that the car in question had not been brought through those places. At this stage , the prosecution cannot be shut from leading evidence to prove that the car had not been brought from the places mentioned in section 9 or 10 or Customs Stations".
6. The learned counsel contended that sub-clause (b) of section 2 (s) cannot be read in isolation or as completely divorced from the preceding sub-clause (a). What is not notified or specified in sub clause (a) could not be made the subject-matter of smuggling under sub-clause (b).
7. This view of the law taken by the learned counsel for the appellant results in attributing redundancy to sub-clause (b) for what is not specified or notified in sub-clause (a) cannot be subjected to prohibition and restriction at all if it is brought through routes other than those declared under section 9 or 10 of Customs Act or through any place except Customs-Stations.
Such interpretation of law cannot be readily allowed to prevail.
8. As regards the factual aspects of the case, namely, the sufficiency of the evidence, its quality and content the less said at this stage the better for a trial before a competent Court has yet to take place and that exercise cannot be pre-emoted or removed for decision at the highest forum.
There is no merits in the appeal which is dismissed.