1992 PLP 1902 (SCMR)
STATE through Deputy Attorney‑General‑‑‑Petitioner Versus NAEEM RAZA WIRK‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1992 PLP 1902 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah, Muhammad Afzal Lone |
| Parties | STATE through Deputy Attorney‑General‑‑‑Petitioner Versus NAEEM RAZA WIRK‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Customs Act (IV of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 1902 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Customs Act (IV of 1969)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 1902 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, Muhammad Afzal Lone.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 1902 (SCMR) (STATE through Deputy Attorney‑General‑‑‑Petitioner Versus NAEEM RAZA WIRK‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, Deputy Attorney‑General instructed by MA. Qayyum Mazhar, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 16th March, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order of the Peshawar High Court, dated 3‑8‑1991 passed in Cr. Appeal No.63 of 1911). ‑‑‑‑S. 171‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to examine the question whether liability could be divided into two parts amongst two accused persons for the purpose of determining the question of cognizance and jurisdiction. Respondent not represented.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Ijaz Ahmad, Deputy Attorney‑General instructed by MA. Qayyum Mazhar, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner. Respondent not represented. Date of hearing: 16th March, 1992. SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.‑‑‑State seeks leave to appeal against dismissal in limine of Cr. Appeal No.63 of 1991, vide order dated 3‑8‑1991, on the ground that judgment of acquittal of trial Court does not suffer; from any illegality or material irregularity. Briefly stated the relevant facts giving rise to this petition are as under:‑‑
2. On 7‑7‑1988 Customs staff stopped Pick‑up No.LHM‑5469 belonging to Narcotic Control Board and on search two refrigerators, three air conditioners, one Klashnikov and 1,300 cartridges were recovered. Vehicle was being driven by respondent Naeem Raza while Tariq Malik, Flying Officer was sitting with him. Tariq Malik was handed over to his own department for' further action according to law. Naeem Raza was taken in custody and was served with notice under section 171 of the Customs Act. After necessary investigation challan was presented before Special Judge (Central) Anti-Corruption, Anti‑Smuggling and Immigration, Peshawar.
3. In the trial Court four P.Ws. were examined. Respondent did not produce any witness but examined himself in defence. Trial Court acquitted respondent on the ground that according to the assessment certificate, C.I.F. value of the goods came to Rs.16,390 and if that is divided into two parts, each of the two accused would be liable for the amount which is less than Rs. 10,000 which is minimum requirement under the law for taking cognizance of the case. In support, reliance is placed on unreported judgment of the High Court of Lahore in Cr. Misc. No.583/Q/76 titled Mohammad Qasim and others v. The State.
4. High Court has agreed with the finding of the trial Court and has held that trial Court has rightly divided liability among two accused and acquitted respondent of the charge in question and on that short ground appeal is dismissed in limine.
5. Choudhry Ijaz Ahmed, learned Deputy Attorney‑General has submitted before us that both the Courts below have erred in coming to conclusion, as they did, that liability' could be divided into two parts amongst accused persons for the purpose of determining the question of cognizance and jurisdiction. According to learned D.A.‑G. in such circumstances, accused can be held jointly liable for the purpose of jurisdiction and cognizance of the offence.
6. Since contention mentioned above raises question of interpretation and of public importance, we grant leave. Let bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.10,000 be issued against respondent Naeem Raza to be .served and executed to the satisfaction of the trial Court. M.BA./S‑697/S Leave granted.