Case Details

Citation(s)
2000 SLG 2134 2000 SLD 2134 2000 PLD 108
Lahore High Court
Criminal Appeal No. 100 of 1999, heard on 13th August, 1999. dates of hearing: 12th and 13th August, 1999
IHSAN-UL-HAQ CHAUDHRY, J
Syed Iftikhar Hussain Gillani for Appellants. Kh. Saeed-uz-Zafar, Dy. A.G. for the State

MAJID BUKHARI

VS

THE STATE

Law: Customs Act, 1969

Section: 156(l)(8),159(1),159

(a) Precedent- --- Decision becomes an authority in alike case and the Courts are bound to -follow the same so long as it stands unreversed --- Binding effect of such authority, however, would disappear if it was shown that the law was misunderstood or misapplied in that particular case. Yazoo & M. V.R. Co. v. Adams (180 US 1) and Heisler v. Thomas Colliery Co. (260 US 245) ref. (b) Interpretation of statutes--- Mandatory and directory nature of a provision---Use of words "shall" and it'-m-'ay %--Effect --- Word "shall" will not always make a particular provision mandatory in nature --- Words "shall" and "may" used in a provision are interchangeable --- Golden rule for determining whether a particular provision is directory or mandatory in nature is to determine the same in the light of the scheme of a particular statute --- Nature and purpose of the provision can be ascertained from the intention of the Legislature. Abdul Rahim and 2 others v. Messrs United Bank Ltd. of Pakistan PLD 1997 Kar. 62;. Messrs Maple Leaf Cement Factory Ltd. v. The Collector of Central Excise and Sales Tax (Appeal), Lahore and 2 others 1993 MLD 1645 and Muhammad Saleh v. The Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore and 2 others PLD 1972 SC 326 ref. (c) Customs Act (IV of 1969)--- ---- Ss. 156(l)(8) & 159(l) --- Appreciation of evidence Prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt --- When Court was convinced of the offence having been committed, procedural lapses specifically made during investigation could be of no legal consequence --- Provisions of S.159 of the Customs Act, 1969 being directory in nature, contention of the counsel of accused that word "shall" having been used in the provision or S. 159(l) of the said Act the same was mandatory in nature violation of which had vitiated the trial, had no merit --- Intention of the Legislature was that the accused if really involved in the case should not escape punishment--- Appeal of accused was dismissed accordingly. S.M. Yousuf and others v. Collector of Customs and others PLD 1968 599; Shaukat Hussain v. Zulfiqar Ahmad, S.H.O., P.S. Mozang and 2 Others 1983 PCr.LJ 676; Muhammad Nadeem v.…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492