| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1966 SLG 4984 = 1966 SLD 4984 = 1966 PLD 97 |
Sindh High Court
Criminal Revision Applications Nos, 48 and 49 of .1965, decided on 31st August 1965,
Presented By: M. Jamil Asghar, J
Waris Meah v. The State P L D 1957 S C (Pak.) 157 and Kalipada Shaha v. The State P L D 1959 S C (Pak.) 322 ref. Riaz Hashmi for Petitioner. N. A. Farooqui for
Respondent No. 1. Nemo for the State.
Criminal Revision Applications Nos, 48 and 49 of .1965, decided on 31st August 1965,
Presented By: M. Jamil Asghar, J
Waris Meah v. The State P L D 1957 S C (Pak.) 157 and Kalipada Shaha v. The State P L D 1959 S C (Pak.) 322 ref. Riaz Hashmi for Petitioner. N. A. Farooqui for
Respondent No. 1. Nemo for the State.
MUHAMMAD AMIN KHAN HAZIEN-Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER ----Respondents
Law: Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947
Section: 23
Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (VII of 1947)----S. 23-Juris diction of ordinary Courts to try Foreign Exchange cases-No longer kept alive. Dates of hearing: 23rd and 24th August 1965. JUDGMENT Two cases, i.e., under section 5 read with section 23 and under section 9 read with section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 are pending against the petitioner, Haji Muhammad Amin Khan, in the Court of Foreign Exchange Tribunal constituted under section 23-A of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. The petitioner has filed two separate applications (Criminal Revision Applications Nos. 48 and 49 of 1965) under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal - Procedure for the quashment of proceedings pending against him before the Foreign Exchange Tribunal. Since both the applications are of one person and the grounds on which the proceedings are sought to be quashed are the same, they will be disposed of by one 2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that section 23(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation has also kept alive the jurisdiction of the ordinary Court to try the Foreign Exchange cases by a Magistrate. In other words a person accused of a contravention of the Act could be proceeded against under the ordinary law or before a Tribunal. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the Foreign Exchange Tribunal is harsher in sentence, procedure, powers and as such inconsistent with and in derogation of Fundamental Rights and, therefore, void. In support-of his arguments he cited the case, Waris Meah v. The State (P L D 1957 S C (Pak.) 157), wherein it was held:-"That the Foreign Exchange Regulation (Amendment) Act (XXXII of 1956), which, by adding sections 22-A, 23-A and 23-B to the original Act gave power to the Central Government or the State Bank to determine whether an offender, under the original Act, was to be tried under the ordinary law (section 23), or by an adjudication Officer (section 23-A), or by a Tribunal (section 23-B), the three sections prescribing three different punishing authorities, each with different power and procedure and entailing punishments of unequal nature and description,…