| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2005 SLG 551 2005 SLD 551 2005 PLD 686 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeals Nos.440 and 441 of 2002, decision dated: 26-04-2005
JAVED IQBAL, JUSTICE MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JUSTICE JAN, JUSTICE TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, JUSTICE
Raja Muhammad Irshad, D.A.G. and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant (in both Appeals). Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents (in C.A. No. 440 of 2002). Fakhr-ud-Din G.
Civil Appeals Nos.440 and 441 of 2002, decision dated: 26-04-2005
JAVED IQBAL, JUSTICE MIAN SHAKIRULLAH, JUSTICE JAN, JUSTICE TASSADUQ HUSSAIN, JILLANI, JUSTICE
Raja Muhammad Irshad, D.A.G. and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant (in both Appeals). Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M.S. Khattak, Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents (in C.A. No. 440 of 2002). Fakhr-ud-Din G.
THE STATE THROUGH COLLECTOR CUSTOMS and EXCISE, QUETTA
VS
AZAM MALIK and others
Law: Customs Act, 1969
Section: 185
Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss. 185-F & 185-G---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.265-K---Central Law Officers Ordinance (VII of 1970), S.4-A---Rules of Business (1973), R.14---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Appeal against acquittal---Questions, in the present case, arose as to whether the expression "Any person" was confined to a private individual who stood convicted or penalized or it included any person i.e. private individual, corporate person or a person in authority who was aggrieved of an order passed under the Customs Act, 1969; that whether appeal filed by the Collector of Customs through an Advocate was competently filed in terms of S.158-F Customs Act, 1969 or the same was hit by 5.185-G(2) of the Customs Act, 1969, and whether the prosecution had not furnished sufficient material/evidence to warrant prosecution or "no probability of the accused being convicted of any offence" in terms of 5:265-K, Cr.P.C. to warrant passage of fife orders of acquittal of the accused---Held, Legislature did not intend to restrict representation by law officers alone to the exclusion of other Advocates, if the competent Authority in the Federal Government so decided---Serious allegations of tampering/overwriting/cutting of the relevant register of bills of entry were levelled, the matter was inquired into at the departmental level and the allegations were found to be correct---Ex facie, there was documentary, oral and circumstantial evidence to prove the charges---In the face of such material the Trial Court could not have invoked S.265-K, Cr.P.C. and acquit the accused---Special Appellate Court (Customs) having gone through the material and the evidence recorded during trial, was of the prima facie view that it was not a case of acquittal and remanded the case to Trial Court for trial---High Court, under Art. 199 of the Constitution, in circumstances, could not interfere in the matter---High Court having not correctly appreciated the import of Ss. 185-F & 185-G of the Customs Act, 1969, its impugned was not in accord with the mandate of law and warranted interference by the Supreme Court---Case registered against the accused persons was…
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