1971 S C M R 686 Statute Creating A Special Offence and Laying Down A Special Procedure For Trial of Such Offence Such Procedure Must Be Followed and Not Ordinary Procedure
The respondent had been convicted by a Sub-Divisional Magistrate for an offence under section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act. The prosecution argued that the accused could not be sent up by Police Officers for trial under a challan under Cr. P. C.
Descrição original:
Título original
1971 S C M R 686 Statute Creating a Special Offence and Laying Down a Special Procedure for Trial of Such Offence Such Procedure Must Be Followed and Not Ordinary Procedure
The respondent had been convicted by a Sub-Divisional Magistrate for an offence under section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act. The prosecution argued that the accused could not be sent up by Police Officers for trial under a challan under Cr. P. C.
1971 S C M R 686 Statute Creating A Special Offence and Laying Down A Special Procedure For Trial of Such Offence Such Procedure Must Be Followed and Not Ordinary Procedure
The respondent had been convicted by a Sub-Divisional Magistrate for an offence under section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act. The prosecution argued that the accused could not be sent up by Police Officers for trial under a challan under Cr. P. C.
Present : Fazle Akbar, C. J. and Hamoodur Rahman, J
THE STATE-Petitioner
versus
HAMTHO-Respondent
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K-12 of 1968; decided on 17th September 1968.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi, dated the 16th January 1968, in Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 128 of 1967).
(a) Interpretation of statutes-Statute creating a special offence and laying down a special procedure for trial of such offence-Such procedure must be followed and not ordinary procedure.
(b) Sea Customs Act (VII of 1873) read with Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-Persons accused of contravention of provisions of Sea Customs Act-Cannot be sent up by police officers for trial under a challan under Cr. P. C.
S. Murtaza Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Shafiq Ahmad, Senior Attorney for the State. Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 17th September 1968.
JUDGMENT
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, J.-This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of West Pakistan at Karachi upholding the acquittal of the respondent by the Sessions Judge, Tharparkar, in appeal.
The respondent had been convicted by a Sub-Divisional Magistrate for an offence under section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act. It was contended before the learned Sessions Judge in appeal that the conviction was void as the accused could not be challaned by the police for trial either under the provisions of the Sea Customs Act or under the Land Customs Act. The procedure for trial of such offences was, according to this plea, prescribed by section 7, subsection (2) of the Land Customs Act, 1924 and this required that the Land Customs Officer should in the case of an offence committed by bringing in or taking out prohibited goods by land, make a complaint to a Magistrate.
The High Court agreed with this view and repelled the contention of the Assistant Advocate-General that the amendment of section 9 of the Land Customs Act by the Customs Acts (Amendment) Ordinance, 1962, had not empowered Police Officers to send up persons for trial in any other manner. By virtue of the amendment Police Officers could only be notified as Land Customs Officers but that did not confer upon them the power of sending up cases for trial in any manner other than that prescribed in subsection (2) of section 7 of the Act.
The learned counsel appearing in support of this petition concedes that no complaint was lodged as required by subsection (2) of section 7 of the Land Customs Act but reiterates the arguments that were advanced in the High Court, namely, that the amendment of section 9 of the Land Customs Act by the Amending Ordinance of 1962, gave to the Police powers to send up persons for trial even in respect of offences alleged to have been committed under the Land Customs Act in the ordinary manner prescribed under the Criminal Procedure Code and that section 7 of the Land Customs Act had not altered that procedure.
Having examined the relevant provisions of the Land Customs Act and the Sea Customs Act, we are unable to agree with this contention. It is now well settled that where a statute g has created a special offence and lays down a special procedure for the trial of such offence, it is that procedure that must be followed and not the ordinary procedure.
The learned counsel has not been able to show us any provision in the Sea Customs Act authorising Police Officers to send up persons accused of contraventions of the provisions of the Sea Customs Act, for trial under a challan under the Criminal Procedure Code.
In the circumstances there is no substance in this petition and it is accordingly dismissed.
2000SCMR 1510 - Seniority---Civil Servant Not Appointed Against a Clear Substantive Vacancy, His Status at the Best Could Be Considered as That of Ad Hoc Officer Till the Availability of Substantive Vacancy
2000 S C M R 1321 -Dismissal From Service---Regular Inquiry Not Held---Service Tribunal Had Rightly Concluded That Dismissal of Civil Servant From Service and Subsequent Reduction in Punishment Were Violative of Dictum
1998 P L C CS 221 - Constitutional Petition - Employee of Statutory Body - Termination of Service Without Show-Cause Notice and Without Affording Opportunity of Being Heard
1998 P L C CS 221 - Constitutional Petition - Employee of Statutory Body - Termination of Service Without Show-Cause Notice and Without Affording Opportunity of Being Heard
1998 P L C CS 1221 - Employee, Therefore, Would Be Presumed To Have Been Absorbed And, Therefore, Was Entitled To Be Considered For Pro Forma Promotion
1998 P L C CS 221 - Constitutional Petition - Employee of Statutory Body - Termination of Service Without Show-Cause Notice and Without Affording Opportunity of Being Heard
1998 P L C CS 221 - Constitutional Petition - Employee of Statutory Body - Termination of Service Without Show-Cause Notice and Without Affording Opportunity of Being Heard
1997 C L C 262 -Plaintiffs Application for Correction of His Date of Birth Having Been Finally Rejected on 24 7 1991 Same Gave Fresh Cause of Action to Petitioner -Plaintiffs Suit Was Thus Within Time