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 Appeal No. 9 of 1986, decided on 27th May, 1986.
‑‑‑S. 23‑‑Evidence, appreciation of‑‑Benefit of doubt‑‑Mashir of alleged recovery of foreign currency from possession of accused not belonging to locality of occurrence‑‑No evidence on record to show that accused remained in possession of foreign currency for last four months or actually found selling foreign currency‑‑Defence version that Investigating Agency was inimical towards accused because he had filed a complaint against complainant and four other officials of said Agency about six months prior to present case, supported by documentary evidence‑‑Accused, held, was entitled to benefit of doubt, and acquitted, in circumstances.
Nazir Ahmed Siddiqi for Appellant.
A. Ghafoor Mangi for the State.
Date of hearing: 27th May, 1986.
Appellant Zafarullah has been convicted for the offences punishable under section 23 of F.E.R. 1947. He has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 9 months and to pay fine of Rs.2,000 in default of payment of fine will have to suffer R.I. for further 3 months.
Briefly the case of prosecution is that on 20‑10‑1984 Barkat Ali Inspector, F.I.A. State Bank Circle, Karachi received an information that appellant is offering for sale and purchase foreign currency and is sitting on M.A. Jinnah Road. He alongwith Mashirs Muhammad Shafi and Muhammad Khalid went and arrested appellant who was found exhibiting for sale and purchase of foreign currency on the foot‑path. On his search of 100 denomination of U.S. Dollers, Rs.1,000 Indian currency and two notes of 10 denomination of Saudi Rials were also secured from him. A case was registered under section 4/9/23 F.E.R. Act.
The charge under section 9 of the F.E.R. Act read with section 23 was framed on 8th January, 1985 to which appellant pleaded not guilty.
Prosecution in support of the case examined Muhammad Shafi and Inspector Barkat Ali Exh. 6 and Exh. 4. Shafi has stated that he was told by F.I.A. Police that one person was dealing in foreign exchange. He went and saw appellant carrying foreign currency as well as Pakistani currency in his hands and was bidding for sale and purchase. He enquired about rate of dollar in the meantime F.I.A. people came there and arrested the appellant. He has further stated that appellant was in possession of Rs.1,000 Indian notes, 500 U.S. dollar and 20 Saudi rials. This witness is not from the locality. P.W.2 Barkat Ali has corroborated his First Information Report and stated that he secured Pakistani currency, Indian currency, dollars and rials from the appellant. He registered F.I.R. and produced as Exh.7. He also prepared the Mashirnama as Exh.5.
Appellant in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. stated that he has got enmity with F.I.A. people. In his support he has produced copy of complaint filed by him against F.I.A. people. He has produced certified copy as Exh.10 which shows that he filed complaint against complainant and 4 persons of the F.I.A. on 5‑ 4‑ 1984 i.e. 6 months prior to the filing of the case.
I have heard Mr. Nazir Ahmed Siddiqui for the appellant and Mr Abdul Ghafoor Mangi for the State. Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi frankly does not support the conviction. The Mashirs of the recovery are not from the locality. Mashir has stated that he did not try to purchase foreign currency from appellant. The enmity is recorded as appellant has produced copy of complaint which shows that there was ill feelings between the F.I.A. and appellant. Moreover, the learned Judge in his charge has specifically stated that appellant has not been able to account for the possession of the foreign currency for 120 days. As soon as the alleged' currency was recovered the case was filed and appellant was arrested. Prosecution has not been proved the date from which appellant in possession of the foreign currency. According to the notification any person can surrender foreign currency to the State Bank or Authorised dealer within three months. In this case there is no evidence that appellant was in possession of foreign currency since last 4 months. There is no evidence that appellant was selling foreign currency. For the reasons stated above appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt: and he is acquitted. His bail bond stands cancelled.
S.G.D./Z‑8/K Appeal allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer