Find a Lawyer

Special Criminal Appeal No.11 of 1981, decided on 11th June, 1987.

--S.156(1)(89) Seizure of goods---Mashirnama of recovery discrepancy about--Mashir of recovery stated that he signed Mashirnama at Police Station whereas Inquiry Officer deposed that he had prepared Mashirnama at place of seizure--Defence putting no question to Inquiry Officer about such discrepancy--Discrepancy, held, would not belie case of prosecution, in circumstances.

---S.156(1)(89) Notification No.S.R.O. No.1426(1)/73, dated 5-10-1973--Smuggling--Seizure of goods--Goods seized notified items- Accused had not smuggled such goods but purchased them from market in Pakistan--Value of goods also not much--Sentence of imprisonment reduced to one already undergone.

Abul Khair for Appellants.

Jalaluddin Baloch for the State.

Date of hearing: 11th June, 1987.

This is an appeal against the judgment dated 30-11-1981 passed by the learned Special Judge (Customs & Taxation) Karachi in case No.57 of 1981 convicting the two appellants under section 156(1)(89) of the Customs Act, 1969 and awarding them the sentences of six months' R.I. and fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default of payment, R.I. for two months more, for having been found in possession on 29-3-1981 at about 5-00 P.M. while coming ouein a taxi from the Karachi Airport 21 tape recorders, 26 recorders, 26 hair stylers and 12 cartons of Imperial Cigarettes. They were intercepted by P.W. Yadgar Hussain S.H.O. Airport and on search the above articles were fnd in respect of which mashirnama Ex.4/B was prepared in presence of P.W. Iqbal Shah taxidriver and P.W. Mehboob Shah, another taxidriver. The value of the goods seized by P.W. Ashfaq Ali appraisor customs was Rs.10,721/-: The appellants were charged. The prosecution in support of the case examined the S.H.O. Yadgar Hussain, the above two mashirs namely, P. Ws. Iqbal Shah and Mehboob Shah and P.W. Ashfaq Ali, appraisor customs, who assessed the value. The prosecution also produced the Air Tickets from the possession of the appellants for Quetta to Karachi: The learned Special Judge after hearing the counsel for the parties recorded the conviction in the above terms; The appellants being aggrieved by the above judgment have filed the present appeal.

2. Mr. Abul Khair Ansari, learned counsel for the appellants in support of the above appeal has urged as follows:-

(i) That the mashirnama cannot be relied upon as there is material discrepancy as to the place where it was prepared.

(ii) The goods allegedly recovered from the appellants were not notified items.

(iii) That the sentences imposed by the learned Special Judge are very harsh.

In support of the above first submission Mr. Ansari has invited my attention to the statement of P.W. Iqbal Shah, one of the mashirs, who in his cross-examination has stated that he had signed the mashirnama at the police station, whereas P.W. S.H.O. Yadgar Hussain has deposed that he had prepared the mashirnama at the place of seizure. The above point has been elaborately dealt with by the learned Special Judge. It seems that the defence did not put any question to P.W. Iqbal Shah to suggest that either he had not signed the mashirnama or that the mashirnama was not actually prepared at the site. In my view the above discrepancy would not belie the case of the prosecution.

Adverting to the above second contention that the seized goods) were not notified, it will suffice to observe that the learned Special Judge has referred to the relevant Notification and has pointed out that the items of Electro-thermic Domestic Appliances and electrical goods mentioned at S.No.12 in S.R.O. No.1426(1)/73 dated ,5-40-1973 would cover the radio, tape recorders and hair stylers whereas cigarettes are mentioned at S.No.6 of the said Notification.

As regards the quantum of sentences, It has been urged by Mr. Ansari, learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants have faced the trial for about 8 months and had been coming all the time from Quetta to attend the trial. It appears that the appellants had purchased the above articles from the Quetta market and had not themselves smuggled the above items from abroad.

3. Keeping in view the above facts and also the factum that the value of the articles was hardly about Rs.10, 721/, I would reduce the sentences to the period already undergone by the appellants and the sentence of fine is maintained.

With the above modification the appeal is dismissed.

M.Y.H./S-66/K Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.