MUHAMMAD BASHIR KHAN JEHANGIRI, J.---This petition seeks leave to appeal against an order made by a learned Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court, dated 30-7-1995 whereby a writ petition filed by the petitioner to challenge the seizure by the C.I.D. Police of his Mercedes Benz car at ' Malik Motors, Peshawar' and action taken by them had been challenged, was dismissed in limine.
2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, being a citizen of Kabul - Afghanistan, he had purchased a Mercedes Benz car bearing Registration No.38612-KBL from Rahimyar Ansari Co. Ltd., Kabul Afghanistan vide receipt dated 24-12-1971. He, came to Pakistan on 16-2-1995 via Torkham against a Road Pass issued on 15-2-1995 with necessary endorsements dated 16-2-1995 by the Customs Authorities at Torkham. He parked his aforementioned car with Malik Motors, University Road, Peshawar, with whom he was previously acquainted. The petitioner went to Karachi and on his return came to know that the said car had been seized by respondents Nos.4 and 5 through Police Station C.I.D., opposite Gora Qabristan. After his failure to secure the possession of the car, petitioner ultimately filed a writ petition in the High Court to challenge the seizure of his vehicle contending that he was a businessma n from Afghanistan and had come to Pakistan on a business trip on 16-2-1995; that he had brought the car with him against a valid Road Pass issued on 15-2- 1995 by the Consulate-General of Pakistan, Jalalabad and while proceeding to Karachi for clearance of his goods in transit had parked it at Malik Motors, University Road, Peshawar; that neither the car was liable to confiscation under the Customs Act, 1969 nor the C.I.D. Police was empowered under section 168 of the Customs Act to confiscate the vehicle and; that in any case, the car ought to have been delivered to the Customs Officers concerned for its delivery to the petitioner in view of the provisions of section 168(2) of the Customs Act.
These arguments were, however, not accepted by the High Court. The learned Judges have observed that "where the property is seized under section 550, Cr.P.C., its disposal is governed by section 523, Cr.P.C., which casts upon the Magistrate a duty to whom the seizure of the property is reported to make an enquiry as to the person who is entitled to its possession and to order the delivery of its possession to the person entitled to it". According to the learned Judges in the High Court, "an equally efficacious, alternate remedy is available to the petitioner as envisaged by section 523, Cr.P.C., therefore, the writ petition was incompetent".
3. Leave to appeal is sought on as many as ten grounds. Substantial ground is that the vehicle was not liable to confiscation inasmuch as respondents Nos.4 and 5 had not been designated as appropriate officers under section 168 of the Customs Act, 1969 and; that in any case they have violated the law by refusing to deliver the car to the officer of the Customs Department in the hierarchy of respondents Nos.2 and 3 as envisaged by section 169 of the Customs Act. It was also argued that in the absence of notice under section 180 of the Customs Act, whole action of the respondents is coram non judice and; lastly that the disputed car is neither a stolen property nor is suspected to have been stolen nor could create suspicion of commission of any offence which could attract the application of section 550, Cr.P.C, particularly when no case had been registered against the petitioner or the vehicle.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner at length, we find no merit whatsoever in the submissions made by him. Admittedly, the C.LD. Police took action against the vehicle under section 550, Cr.P.C. Which gives the police wide powers with regard to the seizure of the property alleged or suspected to be 'stolen property' The question whether the property was either stolen or created suspicion of the commission of any offence is to be determined by the competent Magistrate under Chapter XLIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to the disposal of the property. However, for reasons best known to the petitioner, he did not approach the proper forum which was rightly held by the learned Judges as an adequate and efficacious remedy. It thus becomes clear that he voluntarily failed to avail the remedy available to him under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Act V of 1898).
5. In these circumstances, he had obviously no locus standi to maintain a writ petition in the High Court to challenge the legality and validity of the proceedings taken by the C.I.D. Police. The, learned Judges in the High Court are clearly right in saying that all the points sought to be taken on behalf of the petitioner in the High Court should be taken before the appropriate Magisterial Court.
In case of his failure to get the remedy, the petitioner can approach in appeal/revision to various forums in the hierarchy available to him under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
6. In the circumstances, the petition is without merit and is hereby dismissed.