Sections 2 (s), 17, 156 (9) (90) and 185F alleged the seized goods belonging to the applicant claimed that the goods imported by them under section 2 () of the Customs Act 1969, There was no reported goods. The best applicant can be prosecuted under clauses (9) and (90) of section (1) of the Customs Act, 1969. The legality court had to review the case first, presented by prosecution / revenue. The invoice and the accompanying record; and then the trial court's accusation frame against the accused, will remain in place during the trial. And if the evidence presented by the parties can be punished against any other than the crime for which the accused was charged, the trial court had a legal mandate to amend the law which was already set It was not before "stopping" the High Court or abolishing the authority. If the trial court to prosecute the applicant commits an offense provided under sections (1) and (90) of the evidence presented by the parties, sections 156 of the Customs Act, 1969, the charge is brought by the trial court. Submitted, the trial phase can be amended the High Court will not abolish the trial court's discretion and authority, under the trial of a customs judge in its proceedings, favorable to the safe transfer of criminal justice , Which was not guaranteed. Interference by the High Court in its amending jurisdiction \ r \ n
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2015
