1988 PLP 194 (SCMR)
PAKISTAN through Director-General, Pakistan Coast Guards — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 194 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Nasim Hasan Shah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | PAKISTAN through Director-General, Pakistan Coast Guards — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Customs Act ( IV of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 194 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Customs Act ( IV of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 194 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Nasim Hasan Shah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 194 (SCMR) (PAKISTAN through Director-General, Pakistan Coast Guards — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abul Khair, Advocate Supreme Court/Advocate-on-Record -for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 30th August, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Sind High Court, Karachi, dated 20-10-1986 in Special Criminal Appeal No. 19 of 1986). --S. 156(1) -Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)- Smuggling-- Accused-respondents convicted by Trial Court under 5.156(1) of Customs Act but on appeal acquitted by High Court- Deposition of star prosecution witness, complainant, supported by another eye-witness account and chemical analysis of samples which established seized stuff as contraband conabies (Charas)--High Court in acquitting accused found not to have attached due importance to rather failed to notice, various features of the case--Leave to appeal granted after condoning delay.
Judgment & Decree
'We had drawn 3 samples from the seized charas. I see 3 slabs of chars as sample present in Court. These are the same'. " This deposition was supported by another similar eye-witness account and the chemical analysis of the samples which established the seized stuff as contraband canobies (charas). The defence plea was of partial denial. The presence of all the accused in the launch and its having been checked and brought back to the Coast, has not been denied. The plea, however, is that nearly 5 tons of the contraband stuff has been planted on them for false implication. The learned trial Judge relying on the prosecution evidence convicted d sentenced the accused as stated above. In appeal the High Court noted three main arguments about discrepancies in the conduct of the raiding party as also the preparation of raid documents; the discrepancy as to who took the samples; and, the doubt regarding who supervised the raid. But without accepting or rejecting after due examination any of then, it was held that: "On count of the material contradictions ink the evidence of the various prosecution witnesses, a doubt has been created about the of the prosecution story". As a result of this observation the respondents were acquitted. 'It needs to be observed that the learned Judge in the High court did not attach due importance, rather failed to notice the following features of the case: (i) All the accused admitted presence in the launch; (ii) The accused tried to get away by increasing the speed of the launch; (iii) There was a chase by the raiding party for about 10 K.M.; (iv) There was no reason for the raiding party to falsely implicate the accused; (v) The complainant and the Chemical Examiner pointed out the same samples present in Court as a part of the seized stuff; (vi) That the weight of the contraband stuff was too much to be planted falsely; (vii) That the burden according to the special provisions of the Customs Act, 1969, had shifted to the accused; and (viii) That the discrepancies noted in the impugned judgment were either minor or explainable. After hearing the learned counsel we consider it a fit case for g ant of leave to appeal after condoning the delay. Order accordingly. Non-bailable warrants for appearance of the accused shall issue Against them. S.Q./P-32/S Leave granted.