AJMAL MIAN, J.---By this common order, we intend to dispose of the above three petitions for leave to appeal as they are directed against a common order dated 17-10-1996 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh in Constitution Petitions Nos. D-1738, D-1739 and D-1740 of 1996, filed by the petitioner challenging the seizure of three cartons containing television sets at the Karachi Cantonment Railway Station, which were booked from Rawalpindi Railway Station on the ground that respondent No,1 i.e, the Director General, Pakistan Coast Guards, had no jurisdiction, dismissing the same in limine.
2. The brief facts as averred in the petitions are that the petitioner purchased Sony coloured television sets from M/s. Rafiq Sons, Rawalpindi, and the same were despatched to Karachi through Railways. When the consignments arrived at the Karachi Cantonment Railway Station on 15-2-1996, Pakistan Coast Guards i.e, respondent No,1 seized the parcels. After that, they removed the same from the above Railway Station. The petitioner filed aforesaid three Constitution Petitions. The thrust of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner before the High Court was that the Karachi Cantonment Railway Station where the above cartons containing television sets were seized, was not part of coastal area as defined by section 2 of the Pakistan Coast Guards Act, 1973, hereinafter referred to as the Act. However, the learned Judges of the Division Bench, on the basis of an earlier judgment of a Division Bench of the same High Court in the case of Shujauddin v.
Pakistan Coast Guards, Karachi (PLD 1978 Karachi 1110), held that the above contention was devoid of any force and dismissed the above Constitution Petitions. It was also observed that according to the parawise comments, the petitioner had been served with a show-cause notice dated 13-3-1996 in respect of the above seizure and the matter was pending before the adjudicating authority under the Customs Act, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1969. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petitions for leave to appeal.
3. The above petitions were placed in Chamber on 2-2-1997 for Chamber order on the stay application, whereon the following order was passed:- I am not inclined to grant any interlocutory order. The petition for leave alongwith stay application may be fixed in Court after notice to the learned Deputy Attorney General on 12-2-1997.
4. The above petitions for leave to appeal alongwith stay applications came up for hearing before this Court on 12-2-1997. In response to the notice, Mr. Mubarak Hussain Siddiqui, learned Deputy Attorney General, has appeared and submitted that the main point urged by the petitioner in the above petitions is covered by an unreported judgment of this Court rendered on 17-3-1991 in Civil appeals Nos. 117-K of 1978 and 13-K of 1981 (Muhammad Shafi v. The Collector of Customs and another) and (Shujauddin through his L.Rs, v. Pakistan Coast Guards and others), respectively.
However, we directed him to produce the map depicting the coastal area as defined in section 2(i) read with the First Schedule to the Act.
5. The case came up for hearing again today pursuant to the above order. Mr. Mubarak Hussain Siddiqui, learned Deputy Attorney-General, has produced the original map as well as copies thereof depicting the boundaries of the coastal area in terms of the above provisions of the Act.
6. In support of the above petitions Mr. Faizanul Haq, learned AOR, who was assisted by Mr. S.M.
Iqbal, who is not an Advocate of this Court, contended that the Cantonment Railway Station at Karachi does not fall within the coastal area, but is within the compass of the port area. In support of his above submission he has referred to the definition of the "customs-port" given in section 2(j) and section 9 of the Act of 1969.
It may be observed that the former defines the term "customs-port", whereas the latter provision empowers the Board of Revenue to declare through a notification in the official gazette inter alia the places which alone shall be the customs-ports or customs airports for the clearance of goods or for class of goods to be exported or imported besides declaring other places mentioned in clauses (b) to (e) of the above provision.
On the other hand, Mr. Mubarak Hussain Siddiqui, learned "Deputy Attorney General, has urged that the definition of the term" coastal area" given in clause (i) of section 2 of the Act is, that it means the area specified in the First Schedule and that the boundaries mentioned in the said First Schedule cover the Cantonment Railway Station at Karachi.
7. It will not be out of context to mention that the dictionary meaning of the term "coast" given in The Concise Oxford Dictionary, Seventh Edition, and The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Volume I, inter alia includes border of land near sea, sea shore and the term "coast guard" connotes body of men employed to keep watch on coast and thus save life, prevent smuggling.
8. If no definition of the coastal area would have been given in the Act, we would have to follow the above ordinary meaning of the words "cost" or "coastal area" and in that event, the Cantonment Railway Station at Karachi could not have been treated as a part of coastal area. However, in the case in hand as submitted by Mr. Mubarak Hussain Siddiqui, learned Deputy Attorney-General, the term "coastal area" has been defined in clause (i) of section 2 of the Act by providing that "Coastal area" means the area specified in the First Schedule. The above First Schedule "cads as follows:- "Southern strip of the Province of Balochistan along and astride the existing road emanating from the Pak-Iran border connecting the towns of Man-Turbat-hoshab-bazdar-bela-uthal to Hub River (Bundmurad) and also the southern area of the Province of Sindh along and astride the line and road from Hub River (Bundmurad)-gadap-sari Sing-thano Bulakhan-bano-mirpur Bataro-jatti to the Arabian Sea but excluding the limits of any port in those areas."
The above Schedule deems to be quite comprehensive but it excludes the limits of any port from the coastal area. The above definition of the term "coastal area" includes areas which would not have been included otherwise as a part of coastal area in terms of above dictionary meaning.
Nobody can dispute that the competent legislation can provide a definition of a term other than what it carries its ordinary meaning.
In the above unreported judgment of this Court whereby two Civil Appeals were disposed of, the facts were that in Civil Appeal No,117-K of 1978 the field staff of the Pakistan Narcotics Control Board interrupted a truck on super Highway, Karachi, for searching narcotics but they found that the same was loaded with foreign cloth and betelnuts. The truck containing the above items was handed over to the Coast Guards. Whereas the facts in Civil Appeal No,13-K of 1981 were that the Coast Guards after obtaining search warrants under section 162 of the Act from the Additional District Magistrate, Karachi, carried out search of Shop No,101 situated in Jamia Cloth Market, Karachi, and seized alleged smuggled foreign cloth. The jurisdiction of Coast Guards was challenged before the High Court without success and the same was assailed before this Court, but this Court affirmed the judgment of the High Court and the finding that Super Highway and Jamia Cloth Market fell within the limits given-in the first Schedule to the Act.
9. The reference by the learned counsel for the petitioner to section 2(j) and section 9 of the Act of 1969 has no relevance. It may be observed that clause (j) of section 2 defines the term " customs- port" as means any place declared under section 9 to be a customs-port. Whereas section 9 empowers the Board of Revenue to declare inter alia the places which alone shall be customs-port or customs-airports for the clearance of goods or any class of goods imported or to be exported.
The object of the Act is different from the object of the Act of 1969. In this behalf it may be pertinent to mention that section 14 of the Act defines the powers of the officers of the Coast Guard's as under:-
14. Powers of the officers of the Force. (1) The officers and members of the Force shall perform such functions of officers of customs as may be entrusted to them and exercise such powers under the Customs Act, 1969 (IV of 1969), as may be delegated to them under section 6 of the Act for the purposes of prevention of smuggling along the coastal areas of the Provinces of Sindh and Balochistan, excepting the limits of the various ports in those areas.
(2) In addition to the powers conferred under subsection (1), the officers and junior commissioned officers of the Force shall exercise all the powers conferred on the officer-in-charge of a police station under the Police Act, 1861 (V of 1861), and under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V 1898).
Whereas the object of the Act of 1969 as given in the Preamble is to consolidate and amend the law relating to the levy and collection of customs-duties and to provide for other allied matters.
10. It may again he pointed out that the First Schedule to the Act excludes the limits of any port in the coastal area if the customs-ports are situated within the limits of any port as defined under the Ports Act, 1908, or under any other appropriate statute. The same would not be covered by the First Schedule to the Act and the Coast Guards would have no jurisdiction in respect thereof. Mr. Faizanul Haq is unable to point out that the Cantonment Railway Station at Karachi is a part of port area in order to justify its exclusion from the limits of the coastal area as defined in the First Schedule to the Act. We may further observe that nothing has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner to demonstrate that the above map produced by Mr. Mubarak Hussain Siddiqui does not correctly depict the First Schedule to the Act.
11. Mr. Faizanul Haq has also urged that the television sets in question were not smuggled items and that they were also exempted through certain S.R.O. In our view, it is not necessary for us to go into the above contention on merits as it will be open to the petitioner to urge before the adjudicating authority whatever legal pleas are available to him The impugned order of the High Court seems to be in consonance with law and does not call for interference. Leave is refused.
The adjudicating authority is directed to finalise the adjudication within a period of two months from the receipt of a copy of this order and to report the same to the Assistant Registrar, Supreme Court of Pakistan at Karachi. Mr. Mubarak Hussain Siddiqui, learned Deputy Attorney-General, will also intimate the above direction to the adjudicating authority.