1988 MLD 453 (PLP)
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT/STATE‑‑Appellant Versus SAIFUL MALOOK and 2 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1988 MLD 453 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Rustam S. Sidliwa, J |
| Parties | FEDERAL GOVERNMENT/STATE‑‑Appellant Versus SAIFUL MALOOK and 2 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Customs Act (IV of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 MLD 453 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Customs Act (IV of 1969)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 MLD 453 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Rustam S. Sidliwa, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 MLD 453 (PLP) (FEDERAL GOVERNMENT/STATE‑‑Appellant Versus SAIFUL MALOOK and 2 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Niaz Ali Shah for Appellant.
- Mr. Abdul Latif Chaudhary for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 23rd January, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 417‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 156 (1) (8) & (81)‑‑Appeal against acquittal‑‑Witnesses making two different statements before Investigating Officer and Sub‑Inspector and as such no reliance could be placed on their testimony‑‑Trial Judge making proper appraisal of evidence on record and his judgment neither arbitrary nor capricious or based on a palpable misreading of,, evidence‑‑Interference declined in order of acquittal.
Judgment & Decree
Syed Niaz Ali Shah for Appellant. Mr. Abdul Latif Chaudhary for Respondents. Date of hearing: 23rd January, 1988. This is an appeal preferred by Federal Government/State against the judgment of the learned Special Judge, Customs, Lahore, dated 25‑11‑1984, acquitting Saiful Malook, Muhammad Jalil and Muhammad Nawaz, accused/respondents Nos. 1 to 3, in respect of the charge against them under section 156 (1) (8) and (81) read with section 178 of the Customs Act, 1969.
2. Having read the oral and documentary evidence on the record, apart from the judgment of the learned Special Judge, Customs, Lahore, I feel that the case is not one which calls for the acquittal being converted into a conviction. The learned Standing Counsel for the Customs authority also feels that the judgment of the learned Special Judge, Customs, being based on a proper appreciation of the evidence of the record and the law on the subject, does not stand vitiated in any way or calls for any review. It appears that the witnesses made one statement before Nawab Khan 1.0. and another before Muhammad Ilyas S.I. In this view of the matter, no reliance could be placed on their testimony. In view of the proper appraisal of the evidence on the record and the law on the subject by the learned Special Judge, Customs, the present case is not one where it can be stated that the judgment was either arbitrary, or capricious, or one based on a palpable misreading of the evidence. No interference is called for. In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal, which is dismissed. M.Y.H./F‑57/L Appeal dismissed.