Law: Criminal Procedure Code, 1898

Section: V,497(2)

Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: V,16,32(1),32(2),32(A)

Law: Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950

Section: XXXIX,3(1)

Law: Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947

Section: VII,12(1)

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497(2)---Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 16, 32(1)(2) & 32-A---Imports and Exports (Control) Act (XXXIX of 1950), S. 3(1)---Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (VII of 1947), S. 12(1)---Issuance of fake and bogus Forms-Es--Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Allegations against the accused-petitioner were that the Customs Clearing Agents and the middle men in connivance with the exporter/petitioner on the basis of fake Form-Es had made an export of indigenous products and had caused huge loss to the Government Exchequer in the shape of foreign exchange---As per record, the allegation against the petitioner was that he, while acting as Exporter had issued fake Form- Es pertaining to the export made by different Custom Clearing Agencies--Petitioner herein had denied his involvement in any import/export business and had relied on the bank statement stating that no such transaction had been made through his account---In such circumstances, the liability of the petitioner could only be proved or otherwise after a full-fledged trial---Petitioner was charged under Ss.16, 32(1)(2) & (32A) of the Customs Act, 1969, read with S.3(1) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950, punishable under Ss. 156(1), (14), (14A), 77 and 90 of the Customs Act, 1969, S.3(3) of Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950, read with Para 3 of Exports Policy Order, 2016, and S.12(1) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947---Except subsection (14A), other sections were either bailable or merely entailed fine---Though subsection 14A provided maximum punishment up to 10 years but at the same time it provided for an alternate punishment of fine---Court while awarding punishment had the option either to award imprisonment or to inflict fine keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and to some extent awarding quantum of punishment was within the discretion of the Court---Keeping in view the alternate punishment such fact by itself made the case of accused petitioner one of further inquiry entitling him to the concession of bail---Bail application was allowed, in circumstances. Sikandar A Karim v. The State 1995 SCMR 387 rel. Date of…