1. The case of the prosecution is that on the night between 24th and 25th September, 1980, the present accused after he had completed the formalities of bringing etc. For his departure to Hong Kong by air at the Karachi Airport, was intercepted by the Customs personnel and U. S. $ 19574 were recovered from his custody having been kept in the shoes that he was wearing. The request for bail by the applicant has been refused and his application is dismissed by the learned Special Judge (Customs & Taxation), Karachi vide order dated 5th October, 1980, On behalf of the applicant it has been contended that the allegations of the prosecution are false as the currency in question was not recovered from his possession. Counsel argues that an Afghan national by the name Mr. Abdul Qadeer entered Pakistan under Passport No. B. 017060 issued by the Government of Afghanistan and was permitted to bring in 20000 U. S. $ which were duly endorsed on his passport vide Endorse--ment dated 16th September, 1980, by the Land Customs, Torkhum. The case of the applicant is that as the Afghan national was not acquainted with the Urdu and English languages he had engaged the applicant to accompany him to Hong Kong for business purposes. There was also another person in the team by name Shahid Latif who was also engaged similarly. The party was originally scheduled to leave Karachi for Hong Kong by Lufthansa on 21September, 1980, but the departure had to be cancelled as the said Afghan national did not have entry visa for Hong Kong or a return visa to enter Pakistan or any other country. Counsel states that the last valid entry visa issued by the Embassy of India, Kabul to the said Afghan national on 24th June, 1980, was valid up to 28th September, 1980, but the airline wanted it to be further checked up whether he would be permitted to enter India if he is taken to Hong Kong. It is submitted that Abdul Qadeer contacted the Indian Consulate at Karachi who told him that the visast is valid for the period originally mentioned therein. The party, therefore, planned to leave on 24th September, 1980, and the airline agreed to take Abdul Qadeer but he had no confirmed seat and, therefore, he was waiting at the Airport. It is argued by the counsel that Abdul Qadeer was also contacted by the Customs but due to language difficulty he requested the applicant to deal with the Customs personnel. The applicant informed them that Abdul Qadeer was carrying U. S. Dollars duly authorised by the Government. Thus the money was secured from the Afghan national but the applicant was involved in the case. In this connection Abdul Qadeer filed an affidavit supporting the defence of the applicant before the trial Court but the trial Court rejected the argument of the counsel on the ground that admittedly Abdul Qadeer had not done anything to claim his currency.
2. Counsel argues that he is an Afghan national having language problem in Pakistan and he went back to Peshawar to contact the uncle of the applicant through whom he engaged the latter and has actually filed the affidavit claiming the amount. Counsel also argues that he is physically incapable to carry such huge currency in shoes as alleged by the prosecution. Additionally it is submitted that the applicant has been certified by Medical Officer, L. R. H. Peshawar to be suffering from Nephiritis which is a serious kidney disease.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the application and submits that there is prima facie evidence of the recovery of the amount from the possession of the applicant supported by the independent mashir.
4. I, however, find the submissions made on behalf for the applicant make out a case for further enquiry. Prima facie Abdul Qadeer was in possession of an amount of 20,000 U. S: $ under a valid permit recently issued by the Customs and is supporting the applicant.
5. Fail allowed.