1978 PLP 430 (SCMR)
TORAB SHAH-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 1978 PLP 430 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | TORAB SHAH-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1978 PLP 430 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1978 PLP 430 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1978 PLP 430 (SCMR) (TORAB SHAH-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. M. Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 12th July 1978.
- S. M. Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Qasim Imam, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.
- 2. The case came up before us on 8‑7‑1978, when we issued a notice to the Advocate‑General, N.‑W. F. P. Today the case has come up after notice. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that his client is in judicial lock‑up sine 23‑1‑1978. The allegedly objectionable goods were released to their owner and similarly the truck has also been given on sapurdari to its owner. In these circumstances he submits that there was no justification to refuse the privilege of bail to the petitioner who had approached the High Court earlier also in the form of Criminal Miscel laneous No. 148/78 which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on 13‑3‑1978 with an observation that he could move the trial Judge again after some evidence was recorded in the case. However, when the petitioner saw no sign of his case being taken up expeditiously, he again moved the learned Special Judge (Customs) who refused to take his bail, as no evidence had been recorded till then. Thereafter the petitioner again moved the High Court second time but his application met with the same fate and observation that he should move after some evidence in the case was recorded. It is argued that this was not a case in which recording of evidence was a must before considering the grunt of bail to the petitioner and as the broad facts of the case were‑fully before the Court the question of bail could have been decided quite conveniently in tile flight thereof. We agree with the submission of the learned counsel and we find that there was nothing extraordinary in the instant case requiring postponement of the bail matter of the petitioner till after the recording of evidence by the trial Court. The allegedly objectionable goods have already been returned their owner and so also the concerned truck. The offences alleged are not punishable with death or transportation for life. The learned Single Judge did not consider the proper principle applicable in the grant of bail in cases of the present type. We have converted this petition into an appeal and accept the same. The petitioner is released on bail in the sum of Rs. 5,000 (Rupees five thousand only), with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Special Judge (Customs and Taxation), N.‑W. F. P., Peshawar. A short order to this effect was passed by us, on, 12‑7‑1978. The present order provides the reasons for the same.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, dated 13th June 1978, in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 398 of 1978).
S. 497/498-Bail-Allegedly objectionable goods, seized by customs squad, returned to owner and so also concerned truck-Held, nothing extraordinary in case requiring postponement of bail matter of petitioner till after recording of evidence by trial Court-Offences alleged not being punishable with death or imprisonment for life, petitioner ordered to be released on bail-Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 156(8) (89) & 157. Qasim Imam, Advocate-on-Record for the State.
Judgment & Decree
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.‑The petitioner is involved‑ in a case under section 156(8) (89) and section 157 of the Customs Act IV of 1969 and section 3(l) of Imports and Exports (Control) Act (XXXIX of 1950), as per F. I. R. No. 11, dated 23‑1‑1978, registered at Police Station, Akora Khattak, Nowshera (N: W. F. P), for allegedly carrying 300 maunds of Iron Scrap and 230 dozens of Steel Files in a truck bearing No. P. R. C. 3597. He was apprehended by Nowshera Mobile Custom Squad, near Akora Khattak and considering that Iron Scrap were "spare parts" arrested the petitioner who according to him was employed as a cleaner of the truck, the driver of the truck allegedly having run away at that time. The petitioner applied for bail before the learned Special Judge (C) (Customs and Taxation), N: W. F. P., Peshawar. But his application was dismissed on 15‑6‑1978. He then approached the Peshawar High Court but without any success as his Petition bearing No. Criminal Miscellaneous No. 398/78 was rejected by a learned Single Judge of that Court on 13‑6‑1978 He has come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same.
2. The case came up before us on 8‑7‑1978, when we issued a notice to the Advocate‑General, N.‑W. F. P. Today the case has come up after notice. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that his client is in judicial lock‑up sine 23‑1‑1978. The allegedly objectionable goods were released to their owner and similarly the truck has also been given on sapurdari to its owner. In these circumstances he submits that there was no justification to refuse the privilege of bail to the petitioner who had approached the High Court earlier also in the form of Criminal Miscel laneous No. 148/78 which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on 13‑3‑1978 with an observation that he could move the trial Judge again after some evidence was recorded in the case. However, when the petitioner saw no sign of his case being taken up expeditiously, he again moved the learned Special Judge (Customs) who refused to take his bail, as no evidence had been recorded till then. Thereafter the petitioner again moved the High Court second time but his application met with the same fate and observation that he should move after some evidence in the case was recorded. It is argued that this was not a case in which recording of evidence was a must before considering the grunt of bail to the petitioner and as the broad facts of the case were‑fully before the Court the question of bail could have been decided quite conveniently in tile flight thereof. We agree with the submission of the learned counsel and we find that there was nothing extraordinary in the instant case requiring postponement of the bail matter of the petitioner till after the recording of evidence by the trial Court. The allegedly objectionable goods have already been returned their owner and so also the concerned truck. The offences alleged are not punishable with death or transportation for life. The learned Single Judge did not consider the proper principle applicable in the grant of bail in cases of the present type. We have converted this petition into an appeal and accept the same. The petitioner is released on bail in the sum of Rs. 5,000 (Rupees five thousand only), with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Special Judge (Customs and Taxation), N.‑W. F. P., Peshawar. A short order to this effect was passed by us, on, 12‑7‑1978. The present order provides the reasons for the same. Bail allowed.