Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: FEDERAL GOVERNMENT/STATE VS Respondent: SAIFUL MALOOK
[Lahore]
Before Rustam S. Sidliwa, J
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT/STATE‑‑Appellant
versus
SAIFUL MALOOK and 2 others‑‑Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 119/C of 1985, heard on 23rd January, 1988.
Customs Act (IV of 1969)‑‑ ‑‑‑S. 417‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 156 (1) (8) & (81)‑‑Appeal against acquittal‑‑Witnesses making two different statements before Investigating Officer and Sub‑Inspector and as such no reliance could be placed on their testimony‑‑Trial Judge making proper appraisal of evidence on record and his judgment neither arbitrary nor capricious or based on a palpable misreading of,, evidence‑‑Interference declined in order of acquittal.
Syed Niaz Ali Shah for Appellant.
Mr. Abdul Latif Chaudhary for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 23rd January, 1988.
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal preferred by Federal Government/State against the judgment of the learned Special Judge, Customs, Lahore, dated 25‑11‑1984, acquitting Saiful Malook, Muhammad Jalil and Muhammad Nawaz, accused/respondents Nos. 1 to 3, in respect of the charge against them under section 156 (1) (8) and (81) read with section 178 of the Customs Act, 1969.
2. Having read the oral and documentary evidence on the record, apart from the judgment of the learned Special Judge, Customs, Lahore, I feel that the case is not one which calls for the acquittal being converted into a conviction. The learned Standing Counsel for the Customs authority also feels that the judgment of the learned Special Judge, Customs, being based on a proper appreciation of the evidence of the record and the law on the subject, does not stand vitiated in any way or calls for any review. It appears that the witnesses made one statement before Nawab Khan 1.0. and another before Muhammad Ilyas S.I. In this view of the matter, no reliance could be placed on their testimony. In view of the proper appraisal of the evidence on the record and the law on the subject by the learned Special Judge, Customs, the present case is not one where it can be stated that the judgment was either arbitrary, or capricious, or one based on a palpable misreading of the evidence. No interference is called for.
In view of the above, there is no merit in this appeal, which is dismissed.
M.Y.H./F‑57/L
Appeal dismissed.