PESHAWAR, March 18: Dismissing the appeal of an alleged smuggler Haji Shomal, the customs appellate bench of the Peshawar High Court on Monday upheld forfeiture of his property worth millions of rupees.
The bench comprising Justice Khalida Rachied ruled that property of smugglers even outside Pakistan could be confiscated under the Prevention of Smuggling Act (PSA), 1977.
Acting on an application of the Anti-Narcotics Force, Special Judge of Customs and Anti-Smuggling Irshad Qaiser had ordered forfeiture of all the property of the accused.
Details of the forfeited property are: two houses at Qaidabad, Peshawar; seven shops at Qaidabad, Hotel Classic-Inn at Madyan, a one-kanal-and-17-marla piece of land at Madyan, and Afridi Aluminium Industry at Jamrud.
The counsel for the appellant contended that the PSA was not extended to the Federally Administered Tribal Areas and Provincially Administered Tribal Areas in terms of Article 247 of the Constitution, therefore the property of the appellant situated there cannot be confiscated. He argued that it was illegal on part of the special judge to order forfeiture of property which were not in its jurisdiction.
The counsel further contended that all the property mentioned by the ANF were purchased by the appellant before the enactment of the PSA, thus the law was not applicable to it.
Appearing for the ANF, advocate Amjid Zia contended that the name of appellant was not on the government
The bench comprising Justice Khalida Rachied ruled that property of smugglers even outside Pakistan could be confiscated under the Prevention of Smuggling Act (PSA), 1977.
Acting on an application of the Anti-Narcotics Force, Special Judge of Customs and Anti-Smuggling Irshad Qaiser had ordered forfeiture of all the property of the accused.
Details of the forfeited property are: two houses at Qaidabad, Peshawar; seven shops at Qaidabad, Hotel Classic-Inn at Madyan, a one-kanal-and-17-marla piece of land at Madyan, and Afridi Aluminium Industry at Jamrud.
The counsel for the appellant contended that the PSA was not extended to the Federally Administered Tribal Areas and Provincially Administered Tribal Areas in terms of Article 247 of the Constitution, therefore the property of the appellant situated there cannot be confiscated. He argued that it was illegal on part of the special judge to order forfeiture of property which were not in its jurisdiction.
The counsel further contended that all the property mentioned by the ANF were purchased by the appellant before the enactment of the PSA, thus the law was not applicable to it.
Appearing for the ANF, advocate Amjid Zia contended that the name of appellant was not on the government