IHSAN-UL-HAQ CHAUDHRY, J.- The relevant facts for the decision of this Constitutional petition are that the petitioner was intercepted by Asad Awan, S.I. FIA. Immigration Check Post Airport, Lahore, on a secret information that the petitioner would try to smuggle huge amount of Pak currency to Dubai on PIA flight PK-209. The petitioner was apprehended after he had secured a Boarding Card and booked his baggage, which was subsequently got off loaded p-d on search an amount of Rs. 50,0, 000/- was recovers He FIA accordingly registered a case under Sections 156(1)(8)
(81)(82) of Customs Act read with Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. He was also served with a notice under Section 171 of the Customs Act. He could not give any explanation as to the amount rather confessed his guilt. The petitioner then filed this Constitutional petition and prayed for that the show-case notice under Section 180 of the Customs Act, 1969 for. Proceedings of confiscation of seized currency was illegal, time- barred and not in accordance with Section 168(2) of the Customs Act, 1969 (hereinafter to be refered as Act of 1969). lt was further prayed that the order under Section 168 of Act 1969 extending period for service of notice was illegal. During the pendency the Collector was directed to decide these questions. The question of legality of show-case notice was decided vide order dated 11.12.1996 by Mr. Zafar-ul-Majeed, the then Collector while the other question of extension of time was decided by the Collector,vide order dated 28.2.1996. The petitioner there. were proceeded to amend the writ petition so as to challenge the order dated 11.12.1996 passed by the Collector, also.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the FIA was not competent to register a case under the provisions of Act, 1969. lt was added that the appropriate authority has been defined under Section 2(b) of Act, 1969 and FIA is not covered by it. The learned counsel in this behalf relied on Ch. Muhammad Ashraf v. Deputy Superintendent, Anti-Smuggling Squad (PLD 1977 Lahore 300), Adam v. Collector of Customs, Karachi and another (PLD 1969 SC 446), State v. Sahro and another (1992 PCr.LJ. 1795), Ali Maraj and 2 others v. * Federation of Pakistan (1993 PCr.LJ. 1922) and Messrs Shaheen Calico Printing Works v. Mumtaz Ali Khan (PLD 1975 Lah. 1442). lt was argued that the currency was seized on 13.4.1995 but the show-case notice was not issued within two months as per provisions of section 168 of the Act of 1969, therefore, all proceedings including the order of Collector dated 11.12.1996 were illegal, in this behalf, reliance was placed on Abdul Zahir and another v. Director-General, Pakistan Coast Guards and 4 others (PLD 1990 Karachi 412), Collector of Customs and others v. S.M. Yousuf (1973 SCMR 411) and Salooka Steels Ltd. v. Director-General, Coast Guards of Pakistan (PLD 1981 Quetta 1). lt was added that the proceedings against the petitioner were in violation of Article 204 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the petitioner could maintain Constitutional petition in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Messrs S.A. Haroon and others v. The Collector of Customs, Karachi and the Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1959 SC 1 77). lt was argued that CBR itself had opined that FIA is not competent to proceed under the provisions of Act of 1969. in this behalf, reference was made to letter dated 11.12.1996. lt was added that time could not be extended suo motu.
3. On the other hand, Mr. A. Karim Malik, Advocate raised two preliminary objections to the effect that: firstly, FIA is not a party, therefore, there could be legally no adjudication of its orders/actions in its absence; and secondly, writ is not competent simply against show-case notice and the petitioner would be well within his rights to raise all these questions in competent forum. On merits it was argued that as per notification dated 28.12.1992 Pakistani citizens could carry Pak currency upto the limit of Rs.3000/- on international flights, lt was added vide Notification, dated 5.10.1986 issued under Section 6 of the Act of 1969 whereby a I the police officials were given powers of seizure and arrest under Section 161(2) of the Act, 1969, therefore, action of FIA was legal, in this behalf, reference was also made to Section 5 of the TIA Act, 1974 more precisely to clause (c). lt was argued that the time was properly extended in exercise of the powers vested in the Collector under Section 168(2) of the Act 1969. lt was explained that as Mohammad Aslam, S.I. FIA, did not forward the seizer report to the Customs Authorities, therefore, show-case notice could not be issued promptly.
The time was extended vide order dated 11.6.1995 by two months while the show-case notice issued on 19 7 1995. The same was strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 168 of the Act, 1969. lt was added that the time was* not extended suo motu. The collector was moved and he after applying his mind and giving reasons proceeded to allow the extension.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner while summing up the arguments submitted that the extension was without justification and order was passed mechanically. The learned counsel, in this behalf, also referred to Abdul Zahir and another v. Director General, Pakistan Coast Guards and 4 others (PLD 1990 Karachi 412), The Assistant Collector of Customs and others v. Charan Das Malhotra (AIR 1972 SC 689) and unreported judgment of this Court in W.P.No.4293/90.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, gone through the record, provisions of relevant statutes and precedents. The first question for decision is whether FIA was competent to-intercept the currency which was being smuggled out of the country and register a case under the provisions of Customs Act? The appropriate officer has been defined in Section 2(b) of the Customs Act while the entrustment of powers is dealt under Section 6 of the said Act. The CBR issued the notification under Section 6 whereby entrusted the powers to officers of the police specified in the first column of the table, which is reproduced as under:- TABLE ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ S. No. Officers Provisions of the Act (Sections) ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ 1 2 3 ______________________________________________________________________________________________________
1. Officers not below the rank 158; 160; 161(1) &; 164, of Sub-Inspector, within 165; 168(1) and (3); 172 their respective jurisdictions- and 174
2. Officers not below the rank 161(3), (4), (8) & (10); of Assistant Superintendent 162(1); 163 and 166. of Police/Deputy Superintendent of Police, within their respective jurisdictions.
3. Officers not below the rank 176. of Superintendent of Police, within their respective jurisdictions. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ This is to be read with Section 3(1) of the FIA Act and item 5 of the schedule appended thereto, lt was clear from these provisions that the FIA officials have powers of search, seizer0 arrest and investigation under Sections 158, 160 and 161 of Act 1969. This question again was referred to Mr. Zafar-ul- Majeed, the then Collector, who decided the same vide order dated 11.12.1996 after hearing the leamed counsel for the petitioner and prosecution, lt was held by him that the FIA legally registered the case and the Customs Authorities could legally adjudicate the matter. This order was included through amendment in the writ petition. The conclusion is that Asad Awan, S.I. was competent to intercept the currency, search and arrest the accused and register a case under Sections 156( 1 )(8)(81 )(82), 158, 160 and 164 of the Act, 1969. This legal question had been dealt at length in connected Crl. M.. No. 167- Q/98 moved by the petitioner for quashment or criminal case pending trial before learned Special Judge (Customs), Lahore.
6. The next question for determination is whether the time for issuance of show-case notice was legally extended or not? The currency was seized on 13.4.1995 while time was extended on 11.6.1995. The show-case notice under Section 180 of the Act 1969 is mandatory and in view of provisions of Section 168(2) of the Act 1969 it was to be issued within two months. However, the time could be extended by Collector for another two months for the reasons to be recorded in writing. The extension was granted by the Collector. The order reads as under:-
DATED: 11th JUNE, 1995. in exercise of the Powers conferred upon me under Section 168(2) of the Customs Act, 1969, I hereby grant an extension of two months in Case F:I.R.
No. 03/1995, dated 13.04.1995 of Police Station Immigration Airport, Lahore relating to the seizure of Pakistan Currency alongwith Misc, goods for issuance of show-case, since complete relevant papers are awaited from the Seizing/detecting Agency.
Sd/- (Sarfraz Ahmad Khan)
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS The matter was subsequently referred to the Collector, who vide order dated 28.2.1996 held that the time was duly extended. This order has not been challenged in this writ petition. This way the same has become final. Even otherwise the justification rendered by the Collector while extending time observed that the complete record was not available, therefore, the show- case notice could not be issued within two months. This is legal justification and there is nothing on record to take a contrary view. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the cases of Abdul Zahir and another, Charan Das Malhotra (supra) and unreported judgment of this Court in W.P.No.4293/90 but the same are not attracted to the facts of the case. Show-case notice dated 19.7 1995 was served well within the extended time, therefore, legal. There is nothing on record to set-aside the order of Collector dated 28.2.1996.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection to the effect that FIA is not a party, in spite of objection the FIA has not been impleaded as respondent.
However, as the non-joinder would not defeat the action, therefore, this all is of mere academic discussion. The other preliminary objection was that the petitioner has alternate remedy. Now in the present case there has been adjudication of the two points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner by the Collectors but instead of challenging the order in appeal the petitioner kept this petition alive by making amendment. The tendency to file Constitutional petitions instead of pursuing remedy before the authority. Tribunal as per law is recent and it is dangerous to encourage because on the one hand, the statutory authorities are ignored/be-passed. This way the provisions of law are made redundant on the other hand, the cases come to High Court within the factual side having been thrashed properly. This may result in injustice, lt is difficult, if not impossible, to apply the law without the basic facts having been ascertained clearly and categorically. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly; held that all objections legal and factual should be raised before the statutory authorities, in this behalf, reference could be made to Pir Sabir Shah v. Shad Muhammad Khan, MPA, NWFP and another (PLD 1995 SC 66) and The Collector of Customs Karachi v. New Electronics (Pvt.) Ltd. and 59 others (PLD 1994 SC 363). The same view was followed by learned Full Bench of this Court in the case reported as Riffat Askari v. The State (PLD 1997 Lahore 285) and to the same effect was the judgment in the case of Gul Muhammad v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise and Land Customs and 2 others (PLD 1982 Peshawar 30). The tendency of invoking Constitutional jurisdiction without exhausting the remedies available under the relevant law not only results in side tracking the proceedings but also to be discouraged in the interest of justice because it is not possible to do justice without factual controversy having been sorted out in the appeal etc. lt is needless to mention here that in custom cases aggrieved person can maintain one appeal before the Collector Customs (Appeals). The same is followed by appeal before the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and then finally appeal in the High Court as per Section 196 of Act, 1969 as amended by Finance Act, 1997, which is to be heard by a Bench not less than two Judges. This writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this short ground alone. However, it is made clear that the observations, findings recorded above shall in no way prejudice the adjudication proceedings which have to be decided in accordance with law and on its own merits. The conduct of the petitioner also disentitled him of any relief in the Constitutional jurisdiction.
8. The upshot of this discussion is that the writ petition is dismissed with costs both on merits as well as incompetent.