ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR

Cr. Revision No. D – 61 of 2018

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

For hearing of main case

1. For hearing of MA No.3851/2018 (S/A)

2. For hearing of main case

05.12.2018

Mr. Nadir Ali G. Chachar Advocate for the applicant/surety

Mr. Abdul Rehman Kolachi, DPG for the State

>>>>>>>…<<<<<<<

Amjad Ali Sahito, J:- Through instant Criminal Revision Application, the applicant/surety has impugned the order dated 02.06.2018 passed by learned Sessions Judge/Special Judge (CNSA) Ghotki, in Special Case No. 22 of 2015 re- The State v. Waqar Ahmed and others under Section 6 & 9(c) Control of Narcotics Substances Act 1997, whereby imposed penalty of Rs.400,000/- upon him for non-production of the articles under the transportation vouchers (bilty) which were released as a consequences of his standing as surety for the same.

2. The facts of the case are on 10.09.2015 at about 7:00 p.m, Excise Inspector Zarad Ahmed Junejo lodged FIR at Excise Police Station Ghotki, stating therein that on the fateful date he along with his staff was on snap checking of the vehicles in order to curtail the transportation of narcotics, whereas, during checking they stopped the Truck No.C-1106 Upper Deer having container and secured the transportation vouchers and on further checking of the container, he secured Opium so also other edible vegetables, medicines and used wearing (auctioned clothes), hence such case was sent up for trial before the Court of Law.

3. Thereafter an application under Section 516-A Cr.P.C was filed by one Ishaque Ahmed Pathan, Manager of the Goods Tranport for restoration of the transportation vouchers 73 in number along with edible vegetables, medicines and used wearing (auctioned clothes), which was allowed vide order dated 12.10.2015 subject to furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten Lac). Since the surety amount was heavy, therefore, on the application filed by the applicant/Manager of the Goods Transport the surety amount was reduced to Rs.500,000/-. The applicant offered himself as surety and furnished the required surety, which was accepted, as consequences thereof, the transportation vouchers including the edible vegetables, medicines and used wearing (auctioned clothes) were restored. The applicant/surety failed to produce the transportation vouchers including the edible vegetables, medicines and used wearing (auctioned clothes) which were restored at the time of trial, therefore, such notice under Section 514 Cr.P.C was issued to the present applicant as surety for the same, to which the applicant /surety filed reply. Hence the learned trial Court passed the impugned order dated 02.06.2018 thereby imposed penalty of Rs.400,000/- upon him, hence this criminal revision application.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant/surety submits that since the applicant had stood surety for the items which were transportation vouchers including the edible vegetables, medicines and used wearing (auctioned clothes), the same were sensitive items were to be used/utilized. He further contended that the applicant had stood surety on the humanitarian ground and not for acquiring the monetary gains. He has further contended that the entire items if would have been kept for production till the trial is proceeded, the same would have been damaged, and a great loss would have been caused to its owners who had booked the same for transportation. He lastly contended that the learned trial Court in its order dated 12.10.2015 has clearly observed that the I.O has reported that the articles as are detailed in the application are not the case property, therefore, he prays for setting aside the impugned order dated 02.06.2018, as the financial condition of the applicant is poor.

5. Learned DPG for the State opposed for allowing this criminal revision application.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant/surety as well as learned DPG for the State and have gone through the record. Admittedly, the applicant had stood surety for the transportation vouchers including the edible items i.e. vegetables, medicines and used wearing (auctioned clothes) and has failed to produce the same at the time of trial. The said articles are mostly edible, if the same would have been kept in safe custody at any place, the same would have been decayed / damaged and would have lost their originality as well as test. Furthermore, the I.O has also reported that the items which are required to be restored are not the case property, and such fact has been mentioned in the order dated 12.10.2015 by the learned trial Court. Since goods which were restored to the applicant/Manager of the Goods transportation were mostly edible items i.e vegetables, medicines and used wearing (auctioned clothes), therefore, the same cannot be kept for indefinite period. Consequently, we allow this Criminal Revision Application and set aside the impugned order dated 02.06.2018.

Judge

ARBROHI