2019 PLP 1252 (MLD)
WANG XING — Petitioner Versus The STATE through Customs Department SRDP Sost — Respondent
| Citation | 2019 PLP 1252 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | WANG XING — Petitioner Versus The STATE through Customs Department SRDP Sost — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2019 PLP 1252 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2019 PLP 1252 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2019 PLP 1252 (MLD) (WANG XING — Petitioner Versus The STATE through Customs Department SRDP Sost — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Shakeel Ahmed for Petitioner.
- Dy. Advocate General assisted by Syed Riaz Kazmi for Respondent/State.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497(2)
Customs Act ( IV of 1969 ), Ss. 156(1), 8, 9, 14, 44, 45 & 171
Imports and Exports (Control ) Act (XXXIX of 1950), Ss. 2(s), 3(1), 3(3)16, 32, 79 & 80
Possession of 302 cartons of Chinese liquor, containing 3366 bottles of 500 milliliter liquor each
Notice under S.177 of Customs Act, 1969
Scope
Accused, a foreign citizen and Managing Director of Trading Company in whose imported consignment, seized liquor were concealed in the secret cavities
Petitioner/accused contended that as no mandatory notice under S.177 Customs Act, was issued to him before lodging of the FIR so all the proceedings were coram non judice
Complainant, Customs authorities contended that the petitioner had conscious knowledge that contraband items were being imported and he, being Managing Director, was vicariously liable for act of any of his authorized agent, acting on his behalf
Trial of the case was yet to take place, therefore, any deeper appreciation of material so far collected during investigation could prejudice the case of either party at trial
No notice under S.171 of Customs Act, 1969 had, admittedly, been served upon the petitioner before lodging of FIR
Implications of non-service of notice under S.171 of Customs Act, 1969 would be taken up by the Trial Court during trial
No positive opinion, at bail stage ,could be formed regarding conscious involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the offence till recording of some evidence by the Trial Court
Case of the petitioner called for further inquiry as envisaged under S.497(2), Cr.P.C
Petitioner was admitted to bail, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.
The petitioner Wang Xing has been booked for the above offences vide FIR No.05/2018 dated 10.10.2018 registered at Custom S.R.D.P. Sost.
2. The precise facts of the case in hand are that Messrs Shentong International Trading Company imported a consignment wherein during inspection by the Custom authorities, they found 302 carton of China Liquor, containing 3366 bottles of 500 ml liquor each, which were concealed in secret cavities of plywood consignment.
3. The petitioner was arrested in the instant case on 17-10-2018 and on 19-10-2018, he was committed to judicial lock up. The petitioner's post arrest bail was declined by the learned Custom Judge Gilgit on 27-10-2018 which judgment/order has been challenged by the petitioner by means of instant Cr. Misc. bearing No. 201/2018.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with vehemence that there is no specific allegation that the petitioner was connected with commission of above offences. The petitioner being Managing Director of the Shentong International Trading Company came to Sost from Islamabad and was not aware of that contraband items have been concealed in the secret cavities of the consignment. The learned counsel further submitted that under Section 171 of Customs Act a notice was mandatory to be issued to the petitioner before lodging of FIR which has not been done hence all the subsequent proceeding and lodging of FIR are coram non judice. The investigation of the case is complete and the person of the petitioner is no more required for further investigation. The learned counsel relied on PLD 2008 SC 438, 1988 PCr.LJ 1349, 1988 PCr.LJ 2154 and 1988 PCr.LJ 1445.
5. Mr. Raiz Hussian Kazmi, the learned counsel for the respondents opposed the bail petition and submitted that investigation reveals that the petitioner was in conscious knowledge that some contraband items are being imported from China to Pakistan. Being Managing Director of the Company, he was vicariously liable for act of any of his authorized agent, acting on his behalf. The offence carries the punishment up to 14 years and falls within the prohibitory clauses of Section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. We heard lengthy arguments of both the parties and perused the record of the case and also studied the law cases cited at bar pro and contra.
7. Since the trial of the case has yet to take place, therefore, any deeper appreciation of material so far collected during investigation may prejudice the case of either party at trial but it is an admitted fact that no notice under Section 171 of Custom Act, 1969 has been served upon the petitioner before lodging of FIR, the implications of non service of notice under Section 171 Customs Act shall be taken up by the learned trial Court during trial. At this stage no positive opinion could be formed regarding conscious involvement of the accused in the commission of the offence, till recording of some evidence by the learned trial Court.
8. Be that as it may, the above facts and law when taken into consideration have brought the case of the petitioner in the farcorner of "further inquiry" and he would be entitled for concession of bail.
9. In the light of above discussion the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 20,00000/- (twenty lac) with two local sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Custom Judge Gilgit.
10. Needless to mention that our observations in the bail matter are only tentative in nature and will not be used by either party in their favour or against during trial of the case.
11. File be consigned to record after completion. MQ/226/GB Bail granted.