Appellant Ismail son of Ibrahim was convicted along with Ismail Abdul Latif, Majid Yasin and Abdul Hamid under sec--tion 12(1) read with section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and each of them was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000 or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. Apart from the appellant the three convicted accused have not preferred any appeal.
2. In short the prosecution case is that the appellant and the other three accused were partners in a firm which had exported sweets in three consignments to Dubai of the value of Rs. 5,000 in March and April 1964. In accordance "with the' declaration signed by the appellant on behalf of the firm the proceeds of these consignments had to be repatriated to Pakistan within 4 months from the date of export. Since the appellant and the others failed to repatriate the proceeds notices were sent to them to show cause why the sale proceeds had not been repatriated. In reply to this notice, the appellant stated that Ismail Abdul Latif, the convicted co-accused had sold the above consignment at a profit but he had turned out to be dishonest and had misappropriated the sale proceeds and it does not, therefore, appear that he would remit the sale proceeds. In his statement recorded under section 342, Cr. P. C. He took a different stand and stated that the consignments were completely spoiled and burnt 'and at the same the he admitted that one amount of Rs. 500 and to of Rs. 219 were received in Pakistan as the sale proceeds of the consignments. The tribunal after, appraising of the evidence reached the conclusion that the appellant and the others were guilty of an offence under section 12 (1) read with section 23 of the Foreign Regulations Act and convicted them accordingly.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant before me has trot seriously challenged his conviction: The 'prosecution examined Mr. E. D. Butt, the Deputy Assistant Controller in the State Bank who has testified to the facts constituting the violation. His evidence has not been disputed on any material particulars. A suggestion was put Whim whether he had knowledge that the goods were lying unsold at the Customs at Dubai, which he denied, In the absence of any dispute it is established on record that ill, goods were exported and that the appellant had signed the declaration to- repatriate the sale proceeds.
4. The only question for consideration is whether the explanation submitted, provided an excuse against the violation of law. Three stands have been taken, one in the explanation, the second to his statement recorded under section 342, Cr. P. C: and the third in the suggestion put in the cross- examination of Mr. C. D. Butt. Each of them is contradictory ,to the other. If the foods had been spoiled and burnt, how it is that a part of the snit. Proceeds was repatriated at a the, when the case was being tried. Again if the goods were lying unsold what explanation was there for a part of the sale proceeds having been repatriated. In the context of these explanations which are false no justifiable reason appears for the non-repatriation of the sale proceeds and accordingly the appellant was rightly convicted.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has merely argued on the reduction of the amount of fine and has urged that about Rs. 900 and odd have been repatriated and in that context the fine of Rs, 2,000 was excessive. In the circumstance that a part of the sale proceeds has been repatriated and he has undergone the ordeal of a trial I would reduce the title from Rs. 2,000 to Rs. 1.000 but maintain the sentence in lieu of the. The appellant has already deposited the fine and the balance be remitted to him. In all other respects the appeal stands dismissed.