1986 PLP 1730 (MLD)

A. Waheed Siddiqui for the State. Date of. hearing: 20th May, 1986. Appellant Muhammad Hanif has filed this appeal against the conviction by Foreign Exchange Regulation` Tribunal, Karachi. He has been convicted under section 9/23 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.3,000 or in default to suffer R.I. for 3 months more, by Judgment, dated 31st May, 1984.

2. The prosecution case is that on 5‑6‑1981, at about 20‑00 hours while the S.H.O. Police Station Risala, Karachi, alongwith Police Party was on Patrol Duty, he received secret information, and arrested the appellant Muhammad Hanif son of Sattar. On his personal search recovered 27 notes of

100. American Dollars denomination. Such Mashirnama was prepared. The case was registered on 6‑6‑1981 at 19‑00 hours.

3. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge P.W. Sikandar Hayat arrested take appellant and recovered Foreign Currency and prepared mashirnama. He made a reference to the F.I.A.W. Sirajuddin Ahmed registered the case. He produced the F.I.A. ‑P.W. Muhammad Ghulam Exh.2, Muhammad Ali, Exh.5 are the Mashirs. They have supported the prosecution.

4. Mr. Dewan Bashir learned counsel for the appellant contended that prosecution has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of law as merely possession of Foreign Exchange, does not constitute an offence. It is argued that any citizen of Pakistan who owns or who may become the owner of any foreign exchange shall before the expiry of one month from the date of possession, it can offer, such currency for sale to an authorised dealer.

5. Mr. Abdul Wahid Siddiqui appearing for the State does not support the conviction. He has argued that there is no proof that the appellant was in possession of foreign currency for more than 3 months.

6. In order to succeed in its case, the prosecution was required t strictly comply with the provision of the notification in as much as it should have been proved that the appellant after becoming owner Of A foreign exchange had failed to offer the same for sale within one month of his acquisition, as required in the notification to an authorised dealer. The authorities have made no attempt to prove the same and therefore use case of the prosecution fails, :on this score also.

7. On this I refer to a case of Jalil v . State reported in 1978 PCr.LJ. 155, and Muhammad Saleem v. State‑Bank of Pakistan reported B in 1984 P Cr. L J 2083. For the above stated reasons the appeal is allowed, anal the appellant stands acquitted. He is on bail. His bail bond is discharged. M.Y. H. Appeal allowed.