1. ' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.-- The petitioner who stands convicted and sentenced on his own plea of guilty under section 156(i)(89) of the Customs Act, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, dated 14-9-1983 whereby his appeal against his conviction and sentence was dismissed in limine.
2. ' The petitioner is employed in the Postal Department. He was travelling by train from Kohat when he was intercepted by the S.H.O. Police Station Railway Police, Kohat, on 18-3-1982 at about 10-00 p.m. He had in his bags six foreign made electric irons. He was sent up for trial. He pleaded guilty to the charge under section 156(i)(89) and was sentenced on his own plea of guilty till the rising of the Court and fine of Rs, 350 by the Special Judge, Peshawar Camp, Kohat.
3. ' He appealed against his conviction and sentence. The High Court held that an appeal was competent only to a limited extent as provided under section 412, Cr.P.C. No illegality in the conviction or sentence was found. His appeal was dismissed in limine.
4. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before us that there was manifestly non- compliance with the provisions of section 265(c), Cr.P.C. Which vitiated the trial as the copies of the statements of the witnesses and other documents were not supplied to him before the trial started.
5. Yet another ground taken up is that the value of the nrooerty was not assessed or shown to be above Rs,1,000. In the absence of such an indication, the trial and conviction of the petitioner under section 156(1)(89) were unsupportable.
6. ' Section 265-C is actually a re-enactment of section 251-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was held in the case of Abdul Rehman v. The State PLD 1968 Lah . 514 that:- "the provisions of section 251-A of the Code are directory in nature and non-compliance with the provisions will not have the effect of vitiating the proceedings of the trial unless it is shown that the case of an accused person has been prejudiced by that omission."
7. ' In the present case, the learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to tell us who were the witnesses who were examined and whose statements were required to be supplied and were not supplied. Further we fail to understand as to how a person while pleading guilty to the charge can complain of prejudice having been caused to him by omission to supply the copies of statements of the witnesses.
8. The very fact that the charge was framed under section 156(I)(89) which could be framed only when the value of the property was more than Rs,1,000 and would show that the value of the goods found in the possession of the petitioner was more than that. If he wanted to A dispute it, he had to allege it and not plead guilty to the charge. We do not find that in the absence of any material on the record and plea of guilty such an argument can at all be advanced for the purpose of seeking leave to appeal.
9. ' There does not appear to be any merit and the petition is dismissed.