Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal Bail Application No. 24 of 1983, decided -on 31st July, 1983.
---S. 497--Customs Act (IV of 1969), S. 156(1)(8)--Bail--Smuggling- Accused an employee and working only as carrier--Accused not presumed to know that sealed parcels carried by him contained smuggled goods--Even eyes of expert Customs Officers present on duty escaping notice of smuggled goods--Knowledge of contents within parcels yet to be proved in respect of accused--Accused, held, entitled to grant of bail in circumstances.
1976 S C M R 190 ref.
---S. 497--Customs Act (IV of 1969), S. 156(1)(8)--Law, held, presumes that accused is innocent till he is proved to be guilty.
Raja Qureshi for Appellant.
Abdul Sattar for the State.
The bail application is moved on behalf of the applicant one Dawood Ahmad who is said to be a servant of the main accused persons, the two Quettawallas namely, Naseem and Feroze, who have been released on bail one by this Court and another by the trial Court.
Brief facts are that some smuggled goods namely wrist watches and frames of spectacles were posted in foreign parcels from Hong Kong and .were transported by an Aeroplane Lufthansa. These parcels were released by the Lufthansa company at base at Karachi and' some parcels were sent to respective Post Offices at Liaquatabad and A1-Haidery. The applicant Dawood Ahmad proceeded to Liquatabad Post Office and the parcels were delivered to him by post clerk. The Customs Officers who were on duty 'at the Post Office suspected the parcels and arrested the applicant Dawood Ahmad and discovered wrist watches and spectacle frames from the parcels. Further inquiries were made wherein some other persons were also taken into custody and after investigation interim challan was submitted before Special Judge, Karachi.
I have heard Mr. Raja Qureshi and also Mr. Abdul Sattar counsel for the State in this case. Mr. Raja Qureshi contends that the applicant did not know what the parcels contained. He is an innocent carrier. He has also referred me to 1976 S C M R 190. Ins case it is observed by his Lordship Justice Muhammad Yaqoob Ali, J. that the accused /petitioner was only a paid servant of the owner of the Launch who was the real beneficiary of the smuggling gang, thus he was a mere carrier and on this ground the bail was granted. Mr. Abdul Sattar has vehemently opposed to the grant of bail.
Since the parcels were covered and on the face of it its contents cannot be known and it cannot be presumed that the petitioner knew that the parcels contained smuggled goods namely, the wrist watches and spectacle frames. It is to be observed that at the base station of the Lufthansa Customs Officers are present on duty and they have to see each and every parcel. The detection of watches escaped the eyes of the Customs Officers who were experts, then it would not be possible for a mere servant to know the contents in a sealed parcel: The law presumes that the accused is innocent till he is proved to be guilty. The knowledge of the contents within the parcels is got to be proved in respect of Dawood Ahmad applicant who is merely a servant. On this ground alone he is entitled to bail.
He is released on bail on his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 and P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Judge.
M. Y. H. Bail granted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer