| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2007 SLG 3051 2007 SLD 3051 2007 PLJ 248 |
Sindh High Court
Special Crl. Bail Appl. Nos. 36, 37, 38 and 39 of 2006, decided on 4.9.2006.
MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, J.
Mr. Azizullah K. Shaikh and Mr. Ismat Mehdi, Advocates for Applicant. Mr. Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, for Directorate General of Intelligence and Investigation (Customs, Sales Tax and Federal Excise) alongwith Mr. Khalid Mehmood, Director, Dr. Saif-ud-Din June
Special Crl. Bail Appl. Nos. 36, 37, 38 and 39 of 2006, decided on 4.9.2006.
MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, J.
Mr. Azizullah K. Shaikh and Mr. Ismat Mehdi, Advocates for Applicant. Mr. Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, for Directorate General of Intelligence and Investigation (Customs, Sales Tax and Federal Excise) alongwith Mr. Khalid Mehmood, Director, Dr. Saif-ud-Din June
Raja MUHAMMAD ZARAT KHAN---Applicant
VS
STATE--Respondent
Law:
Section:
(i) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)-- ----S. 497-Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 2-B, 3-A, 3-E, 16, 19, 25, 32(A)(B)(C), 156(1), (10-A), (14), (14-A), (77), (82), 168, 178, 171 & 195-C-S.R.O. 450(I)/2001, dated 18-6-2001--S.R.O. 509(I)/97, dated 8-7-1997--S.R.O. 698(I)/02, dated 9-10-2002--National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999), S. 25--Bail, grant of--Criminal liability--Misuse of DTRE Scheme--Claim to inadmissible customs rebate--Plea bargain--Four F.I.Rs. were lodged against accused by Customs Authority--Alleged--Accused being involved in claiming inadmissible customs rebate, and misuse of DTRE by way of phony and fraudulent export, caused loss to State exchequer; and that consignments/containers intended for export when examined by Authority did not contain those export articles which accused had declared--Bail petition of accused was dismissed by trial Court--Ground--Accused was prima facie connected with offence alleged by prosecution and further investigation was still in progress--Accused contended; that he was ready to pay alleged evasion of customs duty; that allegation as to claiming rebate after export was imaginary; that u/S. 32(A)(B) of Customs Act, 1969, offence allegedly committed by accused was to be compounded if he paid amount of duty or tax evaded alongwith penalty; that u/S. 195-C of Customs Act, 1969, accused was to apply to Central Board of Revenue for appointment of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Committee for resolution of dispute as to matter pertaining to customs duty, liability, rebate, waiver, penalty or fine; that case of accused being of civil nature in view of Ss. 32-(A)(B) & 195-C of Customs Act, 1969--No criminal proceedings were to be initiated against him; that offence allegedly committed by accused did not fall in prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C. and that resort was to be made to resolution of dispute through negotiated settlement with reference to law pertaining to plea bargain contained in National Accountability Ordinance, 1999--Validity--Application of accused u/S. 195-C of Customs Act, 1969 for recourse to Alternative Dispute Resolution had already been rejected by Central Board of…
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