IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Special Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 10 of 2018

Special Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 11 of 2018

Special Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 12 of 2018

Special Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 13 of 2018

Special Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 14 of 2018

Special Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 15 of 2018

Special Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 16 of 2018

Special Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 17 of 2018

Special Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 18 of 2018

The State, through the Collectorate of Customs,

MCC-Appraisement, Port Muhammad Bin Qasim, Karachi……………………………………………….………….……...Appellant

Versus

Abdul Haseeb son of Abdul Majeed.......................................…Respondent

Mr. Ashiq Ali Anwer Rana, Advocate for Customs Department

Nemo for respondent

Date of Short Order: 12.02.2020

J U D G M E N T

~~~~~~~

Fahim Ahmed Siddiqui, J: The appellant Collector of Customs, MCC—Appraisement, Port Muhammad Bin Qasim, Karachi on behalf of the State has filed the aforementioned nine (09) appeals against the acquittal of the respondent Abdul Haseeb son of Abdul Majeed, in the criminal cases No.75 to 83 of 2015 initiated upon FIR No. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18 and 19 of 2015 (SI/Misc/24/2014-PQ) in violation of Sections 16, 32(1), 32A(1), of the Customs Act, 1969 for offences punishable under clauses (14) and (14A) of Section 156 (1) of the Customs Act, 1969, read with Section 3 of Import & Export Control Act, 1950.

2. Contents of all the FIRs are almost identical except the numbers and quantity of vehicles and other descriptions. However, brief facts of the FIR are narrated as under:

3. M/s Zahir Khan & Brothers, having its office at Quetta filed Goods Declaration (GD) in the WeBOC system through its unique user ID. The said GD was filed for the release of Old & Used vehicle. The images of scanned documents inclusive of PSI Certificate issued by M/s. Bureau Veritas, Dubai Branch, UAE were unloaded into the WeBOC system for the clearance of the vehicle. The PSI Certificate is an essential instrument for importation and Customs Clearance of imported prime mover in terms of para 9(ii)(5) of Import Policy Order, 2013. The GD was accordingly processed, assessed and was cleared through WeBOC system on the basis of PSI Certificate and other related documents. After the clearance of vehicle, information was received by the Collectorate disclosing importation of vehicles in terms of para 9(ii)(5) of IPO 2013 by unscrupulous importers on the basis of forged/tempered PSI Certificate. During course of investigation, it revealed that forged instrument was presented by the importer of M/s. Zahir Khan & Brothers for securing the release of imported vehicle; hence, the F.I.R. was lodged.

4. After filing of the final reports and completing all the requisite formalities, the trial Court framed the charge in all cases to which the respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After the full-fledged trial, the learned trial Court concluded that the prosecution could not establish the case against the respondent; as such judgments of acquittal were passed in all the criminal cases, which are impugned in these appeals.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant preferred his submissions in which he assailed the impugned judgment.

6. In the instant matter, a full-fledged trial was carried out and the prosecution was given ample epigenetic by the trial Court to bring the alleged guilt of the respondent at home but the prosecution remained miserably failed in doing so. It is well-settled law that in the acquittal appeals, the presumption of double innocence is present in favour of the accused persons and whenever the prosecution challenges the same, the prosecution must establish that the acquittal verdict is patently illegal and there are grave misreading and non-reading of the available evidence. In the present case, when the learned counsel for the appellant was asked to point out the portions of evidence, which were either misread or non-read and what is the illegality in the impugned verdict but he remained fail to point out so. I have also gone through the entire record and could not find any material illegality and/or any incurable irregularity in the entire record and proceedings of the trial Court. The whole prosecution case hinges against the respondent on this presumption that he has presented the forged instrument for release of the vehicle. It is well-settled law that in criminal cases, only the presumption is not sufficient to connect a person with the alleged offence. The prosecution has to bring forth credible evidence against the accused in respect of his involvement in an offence.

7. I am of the considered view that since no credible evidence has been produced by the prosecution against the respondent in all the appeals to establish that the respondent is either the principal accused or he is having connivance with the principal accused; therefore, he was rightly acquitted by the trial Court in all the criminal cases.

8. The upshot of the above discussion is that all the appeals were rightly dismissed through my short order dated 12-02-2020 and these are the reasons for the same.

J U D G E