Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

2008 P Cr

2008 P Cr. L J 1704

[Lahore]

Before Tariq Shamim, J

Syed AKBAR ALI SHAH NAQVI----Petitioner

Versus

STATION HOUSE OFFICER/INCHARGE INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION BRANCH CUSTOMS INTELLIGENCE, GUJRANWALA and 5 others----Respondents

Writ Petition No.6046 of 2007, decided on 30th October, 2007.

Customs Act (IV of 1969)---

----S. 156(1)(77) & (85)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199-Constitutional petition---Quashing of F.I.R.---Allegations levelled in the F.I.R. were found to be correct and challan had been submitted in the Trial Court---Contention that F.I.R. was lodged earlier to the occurrence, was without any substance as on account of a typographical mistake the year of occurrence was mentioned as 2007 instead of 2006---Delay in lodging F.I.R. alone could not be made a valid basis for quashing an F.I.R.---Challan having been submitted, accused had an adequate alternate remedy available to him under the law by way of approaching the Trial Court---Matter essentially pertained to disputed questions of fact which could not be resolved by High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction---Accused had not been able to put forth any plausible ground for quashing of F.I.R. in question, which if quashed, would amount to stifling the prosecution.

Miss Tasneem Amin for Petitioner.

Muhammad Khalid Ch. for Respondents.

Syed Iftikhar Hussain Shah, D.A.-G. for the State.

Date of hearing: 30th October, 2007.

JUDGMENT

TARIQ SHAMIM, J.--- Through this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of case F.I.R. No.1 of 2007 dated 22-3-2007 for offence under sections 156(1)(77)(85) of Customs Act, 1969, registered with Investigation and Prosecution Branch, Customs Intelligence, Gujranwala, inter alia on the grounds that the F.I.R. was lodged on 22-3-2007 whereas the occurrence had taken place on 25-12-2007 which is prior to the incident; that there is a delay of three months in lodging of the F.I.R.; that the prosecution story on the face of it is highly doubtful and unbelievable and that the F.I.R., in fact is a manoeuvred one.

2. The learned counsel for the respondent as well as the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General has vehemently opposed the petition.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

4. Pursuant to credible information that a consignment of 123 cartons containing smuggled goods was lying in the premises of Messrs Meer Goods Forwarding Agency Muhammad Yousaf Mian respondent No.3, Intelligence Officer, Customs Intelligence, Gujranwala conducted a raid and found the smuggled goods lying there. Since no person from the said Agency Truck Adda came forward with proof of any evidence to show that the goods had been legally imported and were in lawful possession, therefore, the goods were detained by the respondent on 15-12-2006. Subsequently, the Agency Manager provided a copy of bill entry Bearing No.2489 dated 15-12-2006 showing clearance of the goods from the Sust Dryport, Gilgit. The Deputy Director (Import), Gilgit was requested to provide bill of entry and other, relevant documents but despite a reminder neither any document nor any receipt was received. Consequently, respondent No.3 along with the staff visited the premises of the Truck Adda on 13-2-2007 for the purpose of taking possession of the detained goods but the same were found to have been removed with the connivance and on the direction of the consignor and the consignee. The above referred F.I.R. was registered against Muhammad Asif, the owner of Messrs Meer Goods Forwarding Agency, Gujranwala and Akbar Ali petitioner on 22-3-2007. During investigation, the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. were found to be correct and consequently, challan has been submitted in the learned trial Court. The argument regarding the F.I.R. being lodged earlier to the occurrence is without any substance as apparently on account of a typographical mistake the year of occurrence has been mentioned as 2007 instead of 2006. Similarly, the argument regarding delay in lodging of the First Information Report is also of no consequence as it alone cannot be made a valid basis for quashing an F.I.R. Since challan in the case has been submitted, therefore, the petitioner has an adequate alternate remedy available to him under the law by way of approaching the learned trial Court. The matter essentially pertains to disputed questions of fact which cannot be resolved by this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction. Further, the petitioner, has not been able to put forth any plausible ground for quashing of the First Information Report in question which is quashed at this stage would amount to stifling the prosecution. Moreover, the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Col. Shah Sadiq v. Muhammad Ashiq and others 2006 SCMR 276 has held that quashing of F.I.R. would amount to short circuiting the normal procedure of law as provided under Criminal Procedure Code and Police Rules and the accused has more than one alternate remedy available to him under the law.

5. For what has been stated above, this petition is dismissed in limine.

H.B.T./A-88/L Petition dismissed.

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from Lahore High Court
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant