Through this judgment, I shall also decide Cr .A No. 629P/2018 as both the matters are connected one.
2. Cr.A. No. 401-P/2018 is directed against the order/judgment dated 27.03.2018 of the learned Special Judge, Customs, Taxation and Anti-Smuggling, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar , wher eby appellant's House No. 17 situated at Gulbahar measuring 1500 square feet has been forfeited to the Federal Government on the basis of complaint under Section 31 of the Prevention of snuggling Act, 1977 filed by Respondent No. 2.
3. Similarly , Cr.A No. 629-P/2018 filed by appellant, Attique Ahmad, against the order/judgment dated 28.06.2018 of the learned Special Judge, Customs, Taxation and Anti-Smuggling, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar , vide which application of appellant for setting aside ex parte order dated 10.04.2013, 10.07.2013 and order dated 28.06.2018 was not decided on its own merits.
4. In essence, the Federal Government through Regional Director , Anti-Narcotic Force, Peshawar had furnished information. under Section 31 of the Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1977 against the appellant and her husband (Attique Ahmad) for forfeiture of their assets gained through smuggling. After submission of complaint on 14.03.2012, show-cause notice was issued to appellant under Section 31 of the Act, however , she did not turn up and vide order dated 01.11.2013, exparte proceedings were initiated against her. On the basis of ex parte proceedings and evidence, the property in question was forfeited to the State. On 02.05.2014, an application for setting aside ex parte proceeding was submitted by appellant, however , she failed to produce evidence for sufficient long time and accordingly right to produce evidence was struck off. On 24.03.2016, an application was submitted for setting aside the order dated 03.03.2016 but the same was rejected vide order dated 20.09.2016, against which an appeal bearing No. 36-P/2017 was filed before this Court. This Court vide judgment dated 07.08.2017 remanded the matter to learned trial Court for proceeding in the case in accordance with law and appellant shall be af forded full opportunity to defend herself by producing evidence at her own option.
5. The prosecution in order to prove the charge and substantiate the allegations leveled against appellant, produced Sardar Abdul Waheed, as PW-1, while in rebuttal, appellant recorded her statement as DW-1 and closed her evidence. After hearing arguments, learned trial Court, vide judgment dated 27.03.2018 forfeited appellant's House No. 17 situated at Gulbahar measuring 1500 square to the Federal Government. Feeling dissatisfied, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.
Arguments heard and record perused.
6. In the instant case, appellant was examined by the learned trial Court as DW4 . In her statement, she deposed that at the time of her Nikah, 20 tola gold and an amount of Rs.50,000/- was fixed as her dower . In addition, a residential house situated in Zulfiqar Street Gulbahar No.3 was also given to her in dower . Apart from the above, 100 tola gold was given to her in Salami by her parents and in-laws. According to the appellant, for the purchase of house in question, she sold her dower house alongwith jewellery which she received in dower and Salami. In support of her claim, the appellant during evidence produced her Nikah Nama. On perusal, it was noted that the relevant column of the Nikahnama where the details of the dower and other property given therein, is mentioned, was torn. Besides, there were ink stains on the relevant column of Nikahnama giving an impression that the ink was intentionally splashed on the said column to do away with the evidence of the dower fixed at the time of Nikah.
The statement of the appellant that remaining amount for the purchase of house in question was managed by selling her jewellery is also not supporting her version as one of the receipts was in the name of her husband while the second receipt was in the name of one Rahat. On perusal of the receipts, it appears that the weight mentioned therein is more than 100 tola besides the vendee was also not examined at trial to prove that the jewellery was purchased by him.
7. The appellant had also produced the sale deed vide which she claimed that for the purchase of the house in question, she sold her dower house. Neither the scriber of the deed was produced in evidence nor any witness to the deed was produced. That apart, the sale deed Ex.PW 1/5 vide which the payment for purchase of house in question was made indicates the date as 3.1.2007 while the appellant sold her dower house after two months of the purchase of questioned house. Thus, the documentary evidence produced by the appellant in evidence negates her statement recorded during evidence that the sale consideration to the tune of Rupees 42 lac 25 thousand was in her direct personal possession and that she acquired the said amount through the sale of her house and her ornaments and was not from the account of her husband.
8. From the statement recorded by the appellant before the learned trial Court and the documents produced during evidence are sufficient reasons to believe that she had no legal source of income and property in her name is a tainted property acquired through illegal income of her husband and, therefore, the burden of proof as required under Section 33 of the Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1977 has not been discharged satisfactorily . It may be noted that the appellant after conclusion of her evidence has submitted a list of 25 witnes ses that she is willing to produce in addition to the statements already recorded. The said application is made with an intention to prolong the matter besides as already enough opportunity was given to the appellant for producing her entire evidence.
9. I have gone through the impugned judgment and found no misreading or non-reading or any infirmity , legal or otherwise, which could justify this Court to interfere therewith.
10. As far as Cr.A No. 629-P/2018 filed by appellant, Attique Ahmad, against the order/judgment dated 28.06.2018 of the learned Special Judge, Custom s, Taxation and Anti-Smuggling, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar is concerned, the learned trial Court has dealt with the matter in accordance with law and the reasons rendered are cogent, tangible and plausible, leaving no room for interference of this Court.
11. Resultantly , both the appeals are dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.