Ch. MUHAMMAD RAMZAN VS SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
2002 P T D 1872
[Federal Tax Ombudsman]
Before Justice (R) Saleem Akhtar, Federal Tax Ombudsman
Ch. MUHAMMAD RAMZAN
versus
SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
Complaint No. 1623 of 2001, decided on 16/01/2002.
Administration of justice‑‑‑‑‑
‑‑‑Allegation of payment of illegal gratification for release of seized car through an Advocate‑‑‑ Allegation was conspicuously, absent from the original complaint and it was not understood as to why an Advocate should have paid a large sum of money to an official who had nothing to do with the seizure of the vehicle and subsequent proceedings‑‑‑Complaint appeared to be false and frivolous‑‑‑Federal Tax Ombudsman deprecated that a member of the Bar should indulge in immoral, illegal and shameful act of paying bribe‑‑‑Claim for recovery of bribe amount allegedly paid, by complainant was illegal and against public policy‑‑‑Complainant even if proved would have not entitled the claimant to recover any amount and such amount if recovered would have been deposited in the Government treasury‑‑Copy of the complaint was ordered to be sent to the Secretary, Punjab Bar, Council for necessary action.
Nemo for the Complainant.
Muhammad Saleem Ranjha, Addl. Director, Customs Intelligence and Muhammad Sarwar, Intelligence Officer for Respondent.
FINDINGS/DECISION
This is a complaint filed by an Advocate who had represented one Mr. Allah Rakha in Complaint No. 756 of 2001 decided on 1‑11‑2001 which related to the confiscation and subsequent auction of a motor car by the Customs Authorities. The complaint was in fact filed through the said advocate and bore his signatures as well as those of the complainant. The present complaint by the Advocate is reproduced as under:‑‑‑
"SUBJECT:COMPLAINT AGAINST ONE MR. SARWAR, INCHARGE WAREHOUSE EMINABAD MORE (CUSTOMS), GUJRANWALA.
Respectfully Sheweth,
It is humbly prayed that Mr. Sarwar came to me and said that the Car bearing No.IDF‑3193 which has been seized by the Custom Authority can be released easily if Rs.50,000 is paid to him and which was paid to him personally by me after consultation with Mr. Allah Rakha.
Neither the car was released nor the amount Rs.50,000 has been paid back to me in spite of any repeated demands and promises made by him.
It is, therefore, requested that the amount in question may please be recovered from Mr. Sarwar.
Dated 23‑11‑2001.
(Sd.)
Applicant
Ch. Muhammad Ramzan, Advocate,
District Courts, Gujrat."
2. The respondent's reply has been received together with detailed comments of Mr. Muhammad Sarwar, Intelligence Officer, Gujranwala who is Incharge of the State Warehouse, Gujranwala. In his comments Mr. Sarwar has totally denied the allegation and has also pointed out that no such allegation was made in the main Complaint No.758 of 2001 filed by Mr. Allah Rakha through Ch. Muhammad Ramzan, Advocate the present complainant. It was also pointed out that it was strange that an Advocate had claimed to have paid illegal gratification and that too to a person who was in no position to release the vehicle.
3. At the time of hearing on 1‑1‑2002 no one attended, on behalf of the complainant while apart from the representative of Revenue Division, Mr. Muhammad Sarwar, Intelligence Officer, also appeared in person to explain his position. On 2‑1‑2002, however, a telegram was received from the complainant saying that he was "unable to attend being sick" and requesting adjournment. The request has been received late and if the complainant was really too unwell to attend he should have deputed some one to appear on the date of hearing and to submit the request for adjournment. Since no application was received on the date of hearing, the application received the next day is not accepted and adjournment is refused.
4. During the hearing it was explained on behalf of the respondent that the Car IDF‑3193 claimed to belong to Mr. Allah Rakha was seized on 11‑10‑2000 by a mobile squad of Customs Intelligence headed by one Mr. Nazir Ahmed Sahi. Intelligence Officer Recovery Memo. was prepared and the car was deposited in State Warehouse on the same day. It was pointed out that Mr. Muhammad Sarwar was only incharge of the. Warehouse and had nothing to do with the seizure or subsequent proceedings culminating in the eventual auction of the car. Mr: Sarwar also recorded his statement on solemn affirmation and stated that the allegation against him was totally false and that he had never met Mr. Allah Rakha or Ch. Muhammad Ramzan, Advocate and that there was no question of his having demanded or received any illegal gratification from them. It was also stated that the car was deposited in the State Warehouse by Mr. Nazir Ahmed Shahi, Intelligence Officer, vide Deposit Account No.72 of 2000, dated 11‑10‑2001. It was stated that though Mr. Sarwar was incharge of the Warehouse he had no power whatsoever to release the vehicle to anybody at any stage.
5. The contention of Mr. Muhammad Sarwar appears to be quite 'valid and it is also noted that the allegation regarding payment of illegal gratification is conspicuously absent from the original complaint No.756 of 2001. It is also not understood as to why an Advocate should have paid a large sum of money to an official who had nothing to do with the seizure of the vehicle and subsequent proceedings. The complaint thus appears to be false and frivolous. It is regrettable that a member of the Bar should indulge in immoral, illegal and shameful act of paying bribe. The claim for recovery of bribe amount allegedly paid by him is illegal and against public policy. The claim even if proved would have not entitled the claimant to recover any amount. Such amount if recovered would have been deposited in the Government treasury. A copy of the decision alongwith photo copy of the complaint be sent to the Secretary, Punjab Bar Council for necessary action.
The claim is rejected.
S.A.K./255/FTO
Claim rejected.