| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2006 SLG 679 2006 SLD 679 2006 PCRLJ 1452 |
Sindh High Court
Special Criminal Appeals Nos. 1 and 2 of 2003, decision dated: 26-09-2005
MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE
Ghulam Shabbir Baloch (in Special Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2003) and Sohail Muzaffar (in Special Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2003) for the Appellant. S. Mahmood Alam Rizvi, Standing Counsel for
Respondent.
Special Criminal Appeals Nos. 1 and 2 of 2003, decision dated: 26-09-2005
MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE
Ghulam Shabbir Baloch (in Special Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2003) and Sohail Muzaffar (in Special Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2003) for the Appellant. S. Mahmood Alam Rizvi, Standing Counsel for
Respondent.
MUHAMMAD AMJAD and others
VS
THE STATE
Law: Customs Act, 1969
Section: 156
Customs Act (IV of 1969)--Ss.. 156(1)(8)(14)(82) & 178---Case against co-accused was that he connived with exporter and thereby facilitated attempt for exporting counterfeit cigarettes out of country---Said act was an offence punishable under clause (82) of S.156(1) of Customs Act, 1969---Neither there was any finding to the effect that the co-accused had committed offence under clause (82) of S.156(1) of Customs Act, 1969 nor there was any conviction for commission of offence under that provision---Revenue having not supported the sentence awarded to accused---Sentence awarded to co-accused being not sustainable in absence of conviction for commission of offence under S.156(1)(82) of Customs Act, 1969, sentences awarded in impugned were not sustainable in law---Impugned s were set aside accordingly. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI, J.---Both the above appeals are directed against the judgment dated 19th December, 2002, passed by the learned Special Judge (Customs and Taxation), Karachi, in Case No.6 of 2002. 2. Both the appellants were charged for commission of the offences punishable under section 156(1) clauses (8) (14) (82) read with section 178 of the Customs Act, 1969. 3. However, a perusal of the impugned judgment shows that in the title and first para. of the judgment it is stated that the appellants/accused were challaned to, face trial for offence punishable under section 156(1)(8)(14)(77) and (81) of the Customs Act, 1969. On typed page 4 of the impugned judgment also, it is stated that charge was framed against both the appellants under section 156(1)(8)(14)(77) and (81) read with section 178 of the Customs Act, 1969. This shows that lack of application of mind on the part of learned trial Judge. It is very much apparent on the face of record that no charge was framed for commission of offence under clauses (77) and (81) of section 156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969, but these clauses have been referred time and again in the judgment. Again I have found that the learned trial Judge has not awarded any conviction for the commission of any offence and the sole finding in this behalf is as follows:--- "That the accused Jamshed Khan being the…
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