2007 PLP 2031 (YLR)
SARDAR NAZEER — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 2031 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Ali Sain Dino Metlo, J |
| Parties | SARDAR NAZEER — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 2031 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 2031 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Ali Sain Dino Metlo, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 2031 (YLR) (SARDAR NAZEER — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ALI SAIN DINO METLO, J.---Heard Messrs. Aamir Mansoob Qureshi, Advocate for the applicant and Mehmood Alam Rizvi, Standing Counsel. The later concedes that neither the applicant had travelled by the plane from which the gold was recovered nor there was any other evidence to connect him with the smuggling of gold, except that co-accused Nazarul Islam was found to have travelled on a ticket issued in the name of the applicant. He concedes that ticket can be issued in the name of any person without any application or physical presence.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss.2(s), 16 & 156(i) (8), (89)
Standing counsel contended that after several years, accused was arrested along with others in some other offence showing that they had been committing crimes together; and might have committed present crime also together
View canvassed by the standing counsel was farfetched and against the basic principles of criminal administration of justice
No person could be arraigned without evidence against him
Suspicion could not be a substitute of evidence
In absence of any evidence or presumption of law against accused, his alleged abscondence would be of no relevance
Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Aamir Mansoob Qureshi for Applicant. Mehmood Alam Rizvi, Standing Counsel. Tariq Rafiq, S.I.O.
Judgment & Decree
Heard Messrs. Aamir Mansoob Qureshi, Advocate for the applicant and Mehmood Alam Rizvi, Standing Counsel. The later concedes that neither the applicant had travelled by the plane from which the gold was recovered nor there was any other evidence to connect him with the smuggling of gold, except that co-accused Nazarul Islam was found to have travelled on a ticket issued in the name of the applicant. He concedes that ticket can be issued in the name of any person without any application or physical presence.
2. According to the prosecution, PIA's Airbus No.A-300 coining from Abu-Dhabi with flight No.PK-280 arrived at Islamabad International Airport on 2-11-1994, and .on the same day it proceeded to Karachi on a domestic flight bearing No.PK-363 and reached at Quaid-e-Azam International Airport at about 2300 hours. Gold of foreign origin weighing 7000 Tolas in the shape of 700 bars each of 10 Tolas concealed in the toilets of the aircraft was recovered and seized by the staff of Customs Intelligence and Investigation. Five of the passengers, namely, Muhammad Akhtar, Nazarul Islam, Muhammad Siddique, Arshad Ali and Mst. Nighat were arrested for smuggling the gold into the country. Nazarul Islam was found travelling on a ticket issued in the name of the applicant.
3. The learned Standing Counsel contends that after several years the applicant was arrested along with Nazarul Islam in some other offence showing that they had been committing crimes together and might have committed the present crime also together. The view canvassed by the learned Standing Counsel is farfetched and against the basic principles of criminal administration of justice. No person can be arraigned without evidence against 'him. Suspicion cannot be substitute of evidence. In absence of any evidence or presumption of law against the applicant, his alleged abscondance will be of no relevance. In such circumstances, the applicant is admitted to bail in the sum of Rs.100,000 with one surety and personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. H.B.T./S-33/K???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Bail granted.