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.
Decided on 3rd September , 1984.
--Ss.12 & 23--Repatriation of sale proceeds--Delay--Accused failing to repatriate, within time allowed by State Bank, amount proceeds of goods exported by him--Conduct of accused showing that he had not voluntarily committed delay in repatriation of amount and he had no intention to withhold foreign currency--Prosecution conceded that act of accused did not amount to deliberate and intentional contravention of provision of S.12 of Act--Charge of offence under S.23 of Act, held, had not been brought home to accused--Conviction and sentence set aside in circumstances.
Dewan Bashir Ahmed for Appellant.
A.A. Muhammadally, A.A.-G. for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 3rd September, 1984.
The appellant was convicted by Sessions Judge and F.E.R. Tribunal, Karachi for offence under section 12(1) and (2) read with section 23 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947 for having not repatriated sale proceeds of goods worth pounds 1,008/- exported by him to U.K. within the time allowed by G. R.P.I. form dated 5-5-1967. According to the contents of this form, the State Bank had permitted the appellant to repatriate the amount of sale proceeds within four months of this date. It is now stated by representative of the State Bank, who is present, that the full amount has been repatriated by the appellant although after the expiry of the time mentioned in the said form. In view of this, the State Bank has given instructions to their counsel that he may not oppose the appeal.
The conduct of the appellant in this case shows that he had not voluntarily committed delay in repatriation of the amount. It also does not appear that he had any intention to withhold the foreign currency. It is conceded that the act of the appellant would not amount to deliberate and intentional contravention of the provision of section 12 of the said Act. I, therefore, hold that the charge of offence under section 23 of the Act has not been brought home to the appellant.
Consequently the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Tribunal are set aside. The amount of fine paid by the appellant shall be refunded to him.
M.Y.H./K-30/K Acquittal ordered.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer