IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

Special Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 27 of 2017

The State, through the Director,

Directorate General of Intelligence & Investigation FBR, Karachi……………………………………………….………….……...Appellant

Versus

Jawahar Lal and another………….......................................…Respondents

Mr. Khalid Mehmood Rajpar, Advocate for Appellant

Mr. Fayaz Ahmed, Advocate for respondents

Date of Short Order: 11.02.2020

J U D G M E N T

~~~~~~~

Fahim Ahmed Siddiqui, J: The appellant the Director, Directorate General of Intelligence & Investigation FBR, Karachi on behalf of the State has filed the instant appeal against the acquittal of the respondents, in the criminal case No.84 of 2014, initiated upon FIR No.Appg-57/DCI/Reliance/2014 dated 25.08.2014, in violation of Sections 32(1) & (2) of the Customs Act, 1969 for offences punishable under clauses (14) and (82) of Section 156(1) of the Customs Act, 1969.

2. Brief facts of the FIR are that on receipt of a credible information regarding involvement of M/s. Reliance Importer & Exporter Karachi in import and clearance of Base Oil through mis-declaration of description and PCT and wrong claim of SRO-1125(I)/2011 to evade Government’s legitimate duty and taxes, a consignment allegedly containing Coning Oil imported by the importer was blocked. After Lab Test Report, it was retrieved that the alleged consignment was not specifically confirmed as Coning Oil; hence, the F.I.R. was lodged.

3. After filing of the final reports and completing all the requisite formalities, the trial Court framed the charge to which the respondents 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 respondents; as such judgment of acquittal was passed in the criminal case, which is impugned in the instant appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment by submitting that the consignment was mis-declared as coning oil while it was base oil as such the respondents have caused monetary loss to the government exchequer. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the consignment was cleared after payment of entire duty and taxes; as such, no loss is caused to the government exchequer as to payment of duty and taxes.

5. 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 respondents at home but the prosecution remained miserably failed in doing so. It is well-settled law that in the acquittal appeal, 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. Learned counsel for the appellant also admitted that the consignment was cleared after payment of whole duty and taxes. I have also gone through the entire record and could not find any material illegality and/or any incurable irregularity in the impugned judgment of the trial Court. The whole prosecution case hinges against the respondents on this presumption that they have mis-declared the consignment so as to save themselves from payment of duty and taxes, however, the prosecution miserable failed to prove such allegation through its witnesses. 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.

6. I am of the considered view that since no credible evidence has been produced by the prosecution against the respondents in the instant appeal to establish the charge framed against the respondents; therefore, they were rightly acquitted by the trial Court in the criminal case.

7. The upshot of the above discussion is that the instant appeal was rightly dismissed through my short order dated 11-02-2020 and these are the reasons for the same.

J U D G E