| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1962 SLG 2942 = 1962 SLD 2942 = 1962 PLD 571 |
Dacca High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 117 of 1960, decided on 30th January 1961.
Presented By: Sikandar Ali, J
Maksumul Hakim for Appellant. Nemo for the Accused.
Criminal Appeal No. 117 of 1960, decided on 30th January 1961.
Presented By: Sikandar Ali, J
Maksumul Hakim for Appellant. Nemo for the Accused.
THE STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN, DACCA-Appellant
VERSUS
RADHA BALLAV HALDAR AND DINABANDHU SARKAR-Respondents
Law:
Section:
Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (VII of 1947), Ss. 23-A (6) & 12(1)-Declaration furnished at one place and failure to repatriate money at another place-Together constitute offence-Triable by Court having jurisdiction over any of two places-Criminal Pro cedure Code (V of 1898), S. 182. State Bank of Pakistan, Dacca v. Bimal Kanta Shar and another Cr. A. No. 105 of 1960 (unreported) fol. JUDGMENT This appeal under section 23-A (6) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act arises out of an order dated the 12th December, 1959, whereby Mr. F. Ahmad, Additional Sessions Judge, functioning as a Tribunal under the aforesaid Act, discharged the accused, viz. Dina Bandhu Sarkar, in Tribunal Case No. 27 of 1958. It appears that the accused opposite-parties were prosecuted under section 23 of the aforesaid Act on a complaint filed on behalf of the State Bank of Pakistan on 13-9-58 alleging inter alia that the two opposite-parties failed to repatriate the sale proceeds of fresh fish exported to India through the land Customs Station, Basantapur, Khulna, although they had duly declared in the prescribed form to do so through the National Bank of Pakistan, Chittagong. Order for issue of warrant of arrest with bail against the accused was passed on that very day, i.e. OD 13-9-58. The necessary processes appear also to have issued in due course but remained abortive till 25-4-59 when issue of fresh warrant of arrest appears to have been prayed for and ordered. It was thereafter that on 23-5-59 one of the accused, i.e. Dina Bandhu Sarker, since discharged appeared. The other accused, i.e., Radha Ballav Halder, however, remained untraced, wherefor on 28-7-59 his case was split up and the case as against the appearing accused Dina Bandhu only was ordered .to be proceeded with. The relevant order runs thus: - "Accused No. 1 Radha Ballav Halder is not produced. Order of attachment returned unexecuted reporting that the abscond ing accused No. 1 has no assets as his father is living. Case of accused No. 1 be split up and filed. Let the case be proceeded with regarding the other accused." Thus the cases of the two accused were…