h1

P L D 2005 QUETTA 95

FAIZULLAH

V/S

JUDICIAL MAGISTRAT/FMC NOSHKI AND 3 OTHERS

Per Mehta Kailash Nath Kohli, J-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 4,23 & 25-
R/w West Pakistan Border Area Food Stuff (Control)
Order, 1958, S. 6, Food Stuff (Control) Order, 1990,
S.2-C(iv)(a)-

In order to further appreciate the above contentions it is to clarify that the petitioner himself had come forward and admitted the guilt and having accepted the violation of law committed by him cannot turn around and say that the said order is illegal on the ground that Havaldar of Levies was not competent to take into possession. As reproduced above section 2-C(iv)(a) of Food Stuff (Control) Order, 1990 clearly authorizes the Havaldar Levies to take into possession the vehicle and rice intended to be smuggled towards border area. It has not been denied that the area from where the rice was taken into custody was not a prohibited area of the border. Moreover, there is a substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the State that rice belonged to Muhammad Ayaz, Ali Muhammad, Muhammad Naeem and Ghulam Sarwar and there was no occasion for the petitioner to have filed application seeking release of same.

The said Article also provides that property of citizen cannot be taken. However, the said provision is subject to the Constitution and restriction imposed by law in the public interest. These are laws enacted by the legislature for reason to protect the smuggling of food stuff in the border area. The law referred to above i.e. Balochistan Border Area Food Stuff (Control) Order, 1990 clearly prohibit movement of food stuff described in the schedule in the border area in order to restrict smuggling to other countries. There is no violation of either Article 4, and Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The contention of the learned counsel that it is also violation of Article 23 is also incorrect.

The petitioner is not entitled to transfer the foodstuff unless he has valid lawful permit granted by the competent authority in this behalf. The present petition thus has no force is accordingly dismissed. [p. 98] A,B & C.
Petition dismissed.

Sardar Nazir Durrani for Petitioner.

Amanullah Tareen, Asstt. A.G. for Respondents,

Date of hearing : 28th March, 2005.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: