1976 PLP 190 (SCMR)
NOORUL AND — ‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1976 PLP 190 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | NOORUL AND — ‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP 190 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1976 PLP 190 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 PLP 190 (SCMR) (NOORUL AND — ‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. I. Memon, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner .
- Date of hearing: 3rd June 1973.
- Muhammad Suleman, Additional Advocate‑General, Sind for the State.
- The owner of the launch, Noor Muhammad. has absconded which will result in some delay in the completion of the trial. A notice was accord ingly issued to the Advocate‑General, Sind, so that the matter could be disposed of expeditiously.
- We have heard Mr. Muhammad Suleman, Additional Advocate‑General Sind, who maintained that the petitioners were not entitled to bail the offence with which they are charged is punishable with rigorous imprison ment for 10 years. At the same time he pointed out that the real beneficiary] of the smuggled goods viz., the owner of the launch has disappeared while the petitioners were only his paid servants. This indicated that the offences committed by the petitioners was not at par with the offence committed by~ Noor Muhammad who has yet to be brought to trial.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, Karachi, dated 2i~‑5‑1975 in Criminal Bail Application No. 429 of 1975). Criminal procedure Code (V of 1898) ‑‑.S, 498‑‑Bail‑Real beneficiary of smuggled goods (owner of launch) disappearing‑‑Accused petitioners only paid servants of owner of launch‑Offences committed by accused petitioners hence not at par with offence committed by owner, yet to re brought to trial Petitioners allowed bail‑Customs Act (IV of 1969). S. 156(8) Muhammad Suleman, Additional Advocate‑General, Sind for the State.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑The seven petitioners are crew members of a launch in which 120 cases of foreign whisky was smuggled from Dubai. They were apprehended on 25 4‑1975 and charged under section 156(8) of Customs Act, 1969. Since then investigation has been completed and challan submitted in the Court of Special Judge (Customs and Taxation) Karachi. The petitioners who are in judicial custody applied for bail to the Special Judge but their prayer was refused. A learned Judge of the Sind &. Baluchistan High Court, has maintained the order against which this petition for leave to appeal is directed. The owner of the launch, Noor Muhammad. has absconded which will result in some delay in the completion of the trial. A notice was accord ingly issued to the Advocate‑General, Sind, so that the matter could be disposed of expeditiously. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Suleman, Additional Advocate‑General Sind, who maintained that the petitioners were not entitled to bail the offence with which they are charged is punishable with rigorous imprison ment for 10 years. At the same time he pointed out that the real beneficiary] of the smuggled goods viz., the owner of the launch has disappeared while the petitioners were only his paid servants. This indicated that the offences committed by the petitioners was not at par with the offence committed by~ Noor Muhammad who has yet to be brought to trial. In the facts of the case we convert the petition into appeal and accept the same. The petitioners are allowed bail each in the sum of Rs. 5,000 with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Judge (Customs and Taxation), Karachi. Ball allowed.