1985 PLP 1213 (SCMR)
SHAUKAT ALI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1213 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Shafiur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | SHAUKAT ALI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1213 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1213 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Shafiur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1213 (SCMR) (SHAUKAT ALI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Tanveer Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J. ‑‑Shaukat Ali petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 6‑11‑1984.
2. The facts, briefly, are that the petitioner and Mussarat co‑accused were tried for smuggling 27 rolls of polyster cloth manufactured in Japan. They were apprehended in Faisalabad when they were on their way from Quetta when they were ostensibly bringing coal in a truck driven by the petitioner. Three sacks containing the above‑mentioned cloth were found to be concealed underneath the coal. The learned trial Court convicted them under section 156(1)(89) read with section 178 of the Customs Act. It sentenced them to 3 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.5,000 each. In default each of them was ordered to suffer another 3 months S.I. On appeal the High Court maintained their conviction but reduced their sentence of imprisonment from 3 years' R.I. to 11 years' R.I. The sentence of fine was, however, maintained. Shaukat Ali convict alone has filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. We are of the view that the guilt has been squarely brought home to the petitioner and he has no case on merits.
4. The learned counsel urged that the sentence of fine (Rs.5,000.) was too heavy and that the same may be reduced. He, however, admitted that the cloth being smuggled by the petitioner and his co‑accused was worth Rs.45 lacs. We do not, therefore, think that the fine imposed upon him is heavy. The petition is, therefore, dismissed as having no force. M. I. Petition dismissed.