1981 P Cr (PLP)

1 Travellers Cheques in U. S. Dollars. 230 The Customs Officer prepared Mashirnama and secured the aforesaid articles. The appellant was then sent up for trial before the learned Special Judge.

3. It may be stated that on the aforesaid allegations the appellant was originally charged under clause (8) of section 156 (1) of the Customs Act in respect of attempt to smuggle Charas. Subsequently, however, the charge was amended so that the charge of attempt to smuggle Charas was dropped as at the relevant time the said article was not notified under section 2 (s) of the Customs Act. Under the amended charge the appellant was only charged with an offence under section 156 (1), clause (89) of the Customs Act for being in possession of the smuggled foreign currency. The appellant was, therefore, tried on the aforesaid amended charge and convicted thereon.

4. The appellant in his statement before the trial Court admitted being in possession of the foreign currency described hereinabove, but his plea in defence was that this currency was brought into Pakistan by him in a lawful manner after declaring it at the time of his entry into Pakistan and as to the Travellers Cheques, his plea was that they had been issued to him by the State Bank of Pakistan.

5. Now it was admitted before the learned Special Judge and indeed not disputed before me that ate the relevant time according to the State Bank Notification there was no restriction on bringing in and or taking out of Pakistan any currency without limit subject to the condition that the person bringing in such currency was to make declaration at the time of entry into Pakistan. The case of the appellant is that he made a proper declaration of the currency imported by him into Pakistan at the time of his entry at Chaman on 3rdAugust, 1973. He has produced a Certificate issued to him in this behalf by the Superintendent, Land Customs, Chaman (Exh. 11-B) which mentions the details of currency as under:- Rs. (i) Pakistani Currency 40 (ii) U. S. Dollars 600 (iii) Pound Sterlings 101 (iv) D. M. 1400 (v) Afghani 700 It will, therefore, appear that while the certificate shows 600 U. S. the appellant was found in possession of 101 and while the Certificate shows 101 Pounds Sterling the appellant was found in possession of 600 Pounds Sterling. Except the aforesaid discrepancy between the figures and one Syrian Lira, the declaration made by the appellant covers the rest of the currency secured from his possession. It has been urged on behalf of the appellant that the discrepancy in the figures relating to the U. S. Dollar and Pound Sterling is on account of typographical error which is clear from the fact that the same figures have been exchanged for the two currencies. The learned Special Judge repelled this contention on the ground that the Certificate issued by the Land Customs being a public document a presumption of correctness attaches thereto unless it is rebutted by positive evidence to the contrary. As regards the Travellers Cheques the admitted position is that U. S. 500 worth of Travellers Cheques were issued to the appellant by the Habib Bank Limited. Quetta Branch against State Bank approval which has been produced as Exh. 11/A. Such endorsement was made on the passport of the appellant. Travellers Cheques of the value of U. S. 230 were brought back to Pakistan. according to the learned Special Judge which had to be declared upon the appellant re-entering Pakistan with the remaining Travellers Cheques. I find considerable force in the contention on behalf of the appellant that bringing into Pakistan Travellers Cheques earlier issued by the State Bank does not constitute the offence of smuggling as defined under section 2 (s) of the Customs Act, 1969. Non-surrender of such remaining foreign exchange may constitute some violation of the State Bank Regulations under the foreign Exchange Regulation Act, but no such rule or regulation has been pointed out. The appellant, cannot, therefore, be held guilty of smuggling so far as the possession of Travellers Cheques issued by the State Bank found in his possession are concerned. As to the remaining currency the fact remains that the appellant did make a declaration of the currency in his possession at the time of entry into Pakistan. The possibility of a typing error cannot be ruled out in the circumstances of this case as the figures written against the two currencies, namely, U. S. Dollar and Pound Sterling arc identical, that is, 600 and

101. It is well-settled that an accused person has to be given benefit of every doubt after considering his explana tion coupled with the evidence on record. Apart from what has been stated above, there is no reason why the appellant would not correctly declare the currency in his possession since he was making such a declara tion in respect of the currency brought by him into Pakistan. There is also no evidence to suggest that he must have acquired smuggled currency in excess of the declaration made by him before the Customs Officer, The non-declaration of one Syrian Lira also appears to me as a trivial matter and in any case would constitute only a technical violation. Further according to the definition of the word smuggle" in section 2 (s) the offence would be committed in case the currency exceeds 1000 Rupees in value.

6. For the aforesaid reasons, I accept this appeal, set aside the conviction of the appellant and acquit him. Appeal allowed.