2000SCMR1218 (PLP)
NOUBAHAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2000SCMR1218 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Mamoon Kazi and Wajihuddin Ahmed, JJ. |
| Parties | NOUBAHAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Customs Act (IV of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000SCMR1218 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Customs Act (IV of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000SCMR1218 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mamoon Kazi and Wajihuddin Ahmed, JJ..
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000SCMR1218 (PLP) (NOUBAHAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Umer Farooq Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 22nd December, 1999.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Sindh dated 10-9-1999 passed in Cr.A. No.5/93).
S. 156(1)(8)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Prosecution evidence had no material contradictions
Witnesses no doubt were Customs officials, but non-examination of any independent witness by the prosecution was not fatal to its case as the accused had been caught at the spot-- Prosecution witnesses had fully supported the prosecution case
Courts below had already been lenient in awarding sentence to the accused-- Conviction and sentence of accused were upheld in circumstances and his petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly. Nemo for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MAMOON KAZI, J.
The petitioner who was traveling to Kaulalumpur by Malayasian Airlines flight No.MH-191 was intercepted at Quaid-e-Azam Airport, Karachi by Customs sepoy P.W. Akhtar Farooq. He was found to be in possession of 1.5 Kgs. of brown heroin powder, which had been concealed in false bottom of the farmer s suit-case. The contraband was seized under a Mashirnama prepared on the spot by Preventive Officer P.W. Irfan Ahmad and a notice under section 171 of the Customs Act was also served upon the petitioner. Investigation in the case was subsequently handed over to Imran Tahir Qureshi and challan under section 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act submitted to the trial Court.
2. The case of the prosecution was fully supported by the investigating Officer, P.W. Irfan Ahmad and sepoy Akhtar Farooq and the charge against the petitioner being fully sustained by their evidence, the petitioner was sections of the Customs Act and sentenced to R.1 for three years and to pay fine of Rs.50,
000. In default of payment of fine the petitioner was further sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was, however, allowed to the petitioner. .
3. The petitioner filed his appeal before the learned Customs Judge in the High Court who upheld the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal vide judgment, dated 10-9-1999.
4. Mr. Umar Farooq Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners, has argued that there were material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses, both of whom were customs officials and no independent witness was examined.
5. We find no force in any of the said contentions. Only material contradictions in respect of evidence which has inculpatory force are to be considered but minor contradictions which are usually found in the evidence of witnesses are to be overlooked. No such material contradiction has been pointed out by Mr. Umer Farooq Khan in this case. No doubt, all the witnesses were customs officials, but the mere fact that no independent witness was examined by the prosecution cannot be fatal to the prosecution case in the circumstances of the case, where the accused was caught at the spot. On the other hand, the case of the prosecution appears to be fully supported by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. So far as the sentence awarded to the petitioner is concerned, the learned Courts below have already taken a lenient view which does not warrant interference by this, Court.
6. In the result, the petitioner is dismissed and the judgment of the High Court is sustained. N.H.Q./N-6/S Leave refused.