Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD NAWAZ versus STATE

Claims for exemption on recommendation and approval after cross-examination of witnesses by the Customs Act 1969 section 32/156 (1) (14) (82) Criminal Code of Conduct (V9 1898), Section 555. Was approved. The accused was not charged with any illicit desire or carriage of goods, nor was he shown to have committed communion with the exporters, in which case the complaint was filed by the Principal Operator (Customs). Who was not authorized to file an FIR. And investigate the case and the complaint filed by the unqualified person could not be made the basis of the accused's challan which was illegal because the trial of the accused under Section 325 of the Customs Act, 1969, Was also illegal because it was not alleged that they had imported or exported some goods or that the garland had been defamed by the inquiring officer who had cheated the accused. Based on the statements of witnesses filed by him six months after the FIR was registered: there was no concrete evidence of the accused's involvement in the case, continuing the proceedings under trial in the Special Judge's Court against the accused. The court proceedings amounted to misconduct and accordingly the same was dismissed jobs for advocates from Battagram lawyer