1. ' WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, CJ.----We have heard the learned counsel. In so far Constitution Petitions Nos.D-59 of 1996 and D-524 of 1996, are concerned, the impugned notice under section 31 of the Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1977, was issued on 10-10-1996 and published on 24-10-1996 and, therefore, was not in existence at the time either of these petitions were filed. No commensurate amendment in the petition has been claimed or allowed. The petitions can be disposed on that short ground.
2. ' As regards Constitution Petition No,D-2069 of 1997, instituted on 12-11-1977, such calls into question the same notice dated 10-10-1996 and several grounds by way of attack on the notice have been taken.
3. ' In the first place, all the petitioners in the three petitions have maintained that they have appeared before the learned Special Judge functioning under section 31 aforesaid and have placed objections relevant to the said notice but as many as 40 hearings have taken place since 1996, no orders whatever issuing thereupon. On our query as to what were the causes of delay, we have been informed that since a number of cases have been lumped together absence of one counsel or the other has been found sufficient to adjourn the matters. In, future if and when such a 'situation arises, we remain confident that the learned Special Judges, seized of matters so proceeding cumulatively, would separate those which can proceed on a particular date from those which cannot and, thus, ensure that relief is not denied to anyone who is otherwise found entitled thereto. Another infirmity pointed out is that since February there has not been a Special Judge though one has been appointed lately but even as regards him a notification empowering him under the Act of 1977, has not been issued. The relevant functionaries would ensure that due notification is issued within the next 15 days, failing which explanation for delay shall have to be submitted before us.
4. ' Taking up the questions in controversy, we do not wish to dwelve into the facts of the case and mostly it is the facts which are questions, one way or the other. However, on the legal question whether the Anti-Narcotics Force was or was not lawfully constituted, due to promulgation and re- promulgation of the relevant Ordinance mandating the creation of the Force, no opinion need be expressed in these petitions. The reason is that under section 31 of the A Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1977, the Special Judge can proceed to act whenever he "receives information" and receiving information would imply information from any source whatever and that can be anonymous, on telephone, by radio or even through television. To make the observation contextually clearer such section 31 is recast below:--
31. Notice to person holding property suspected to be acquired by smuggling.---(1) Whenever a Special Judge receives information that within the limits of his jurisdiction any person, either in his own name or in the name of any relative of associate, is holding property which is reasonably suspected to be acquired by smuggling, the Special Judge may issue to such person a notice calling upon him to show cause, within such time as may be specified in the notice, which shall not be less than thirty days, why the whole or any part of such property should not be declared to be property acquired by smuggling and to be forfeited to the Federal Government: ' Provided that, no such notice shall be issued unless, having regard to the value of his assets, his known sources of income, his style of living, his previous involvement in smuggling or conviction under any law relating to the prevention of smuggling and other similar factors, the Special Judge has reason to believe (which reason he shall record in writing) that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against such person.
(2) A notice issued under subsection (1) shall, among other things, require such person to indicate the sources of his income, the income and assets out of which, or by means of which, he has acquired such property, the evidence he relies upon and other relevant information and particulars.
(3) Where a notice under subsection (1) issued to any person specifies any property as being held on his behalf by any of his relatives or associates, a copy of the notice shall also be served upon such relative or associate."
5. ' This being so, the question whether the Anti-Narcotics Force was or was not lawfully constituted even though such Force figured as the informer is totally immaterial.
6. Nonetheless, the question remains that if a notice under section 31 aforesaid had been issued and if defence had been entered into the Special Judge was required to pass an appropriate order and such order should have been passed without undue delay. If and when a person felt aggrieved from an order so passed relevant provisions of appeal, etc. Could be resorted to. Unfortunately, as said, that order has not been passed in spite of the petitioners appearing as objectors before the learned Special Judge. Let due orders be passed upon appropriate hearing of all concerned within a period of two months.Needless to add that such would be speaking orders and needless to say that the orders would carry such incidents of appeal, revision, etc., as be applicable. In the event needful is not done within the said period of two mouths, reasons for delay would be communicated to this Court.
7. ' Disposed of in these terms. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.