This is an Appeal under section 185-F of Customs Act, 1969 (hereinafter to be referred as Act) against the judgment, dated 31 July, 1979 of Special Judge (Customs & Taxation) Karachi, whereby he convicted the appellant under clause 8 of section 156(1) of the Act and sentenced him to undergo R.I. For 11 months and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000 or in default to further undergo R.I. For 12 months.
2. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 9th January, 1979 complainant, Farroq Mughal, Preventive Officer, received spy information that passenger Basharat Ahmad Khan, will bring huge quantity of smuggled watches from Hongkong by Flight No. PG-603. Appellant arrived from 'Hongkong. Complainant kept surveillance on incoming passengers and spotted appellant. He was asked to declare if any contraband goods, are with him to which he replied in negative. His two suit-cases were searched in presence of Mushir Abdul Waheed and Maskoor Hasan and secured 456 wrist watches and 450 watch chains. His passport, airline ticket, and baggage tag were also secured. He was arrested. The case under section 2(s) of the Customs Act punishable under section 156 (1)(8) was registered. The appellant was sent up for trial. He pleaded not guilty to the charge Exh. 2 framed on 30-1-1979.
3. Prosecution in support of the case examined P.W. 1, Maskur Hussain, Exh. 3, P.W. 2 Farooq Mughal, Complainant Exh. 4, P.W. 3, Ali Asghar Shah Exh. 5, P.W. 4 Saleem Akhtar Exh. 6.
4. Appellant in his statement Exh. 7 denied the allegations and stated that his suit-cases contained clothes and toys for which no customs duty was to be paid but customs officer asked him to pay duty for which he demanded receipt thereafter he implicated him. He led no evidence in his defence.st
5. Mushir Maskur Hasan Khan, in his evidence stated that on 9-1-1979 he was posted in Customs Baggage Hall alongwith Abdul Waheed when at about 2 p.m. The appellant was brought to the counter for checking, by Preventive Officer, Mughal and was asked to declare if any contraband like gold, silver currency are with him. He replied in negative. Me Preventive Officer took the keys from him and opened two suit-cases and one hand bag. He recovered 456 wrist watches, some cloth, two tape-recorders, 450 watch's chains and some perfume etc. From his possession one passport, Identity card, 3 luggage tags, two tickets, one ticket having three counter-foils were secured and such Mushirnama was prepared which he produced Exh. 3-B. He stated that in cross-examination that he was posted in the customs Hall as they got the Plant Protection Qauranteen Station in the customs Hall. Complainant Farooq Mughal Exh. 4 supported his case as advanced in F.I.R., and stated that the appellant came from Hongkong and he told him to declare if he had any taxable items to which he replied in negative. He asked the appellant to open his suit-cases, which he opened in the presence of Mushirs which contained 456 watches wrapped in clothes. He also secured h1s Passport, Ticket, Identity Card and Tags. He prepared Mushirnama Exh. 3-B. He served notice under section 171 upon the appellant. He produced such notice duly signed by appellant as Exh. 4-A. He registered the case. He his produced F.I.R. Exh. 4-B. He has stated that on receiving spy information he kept surveillence on appellant and told him to make declaration if any. P.W. 3 Ali Asghar Shah, was Appraisor in Customs house. He assessed the value of articles g Rs. 40,420 and produced valuation certificate as Exh. 5-A, P.W. 4 Saleem Akhtar is a Investigating Officer. He interrogated- appellant and also examined Maskur Hussain, Farooq Mughal and Abdul Waheed and got the goods assessed. He submitted the challan in the Court.
6. From the evidence and statement of accused it is clear that appellant arrived from Hongkong and was detained and intercepted by complainant Farooq Mughal. The plea of appellant is that Baggage from which watches and chains were secured did not belong to him and two suit-cases which he produced did not contain dutiable items. The plea taken by accused is not supported by any evidence. The prosecution examined Maskur Hussain, and Farooq Mughal who fully supported the case. The summary of their evidence is given in para. 5 of this judgment. The Mashirnama of recovery Exh. 3-B was attested by Maskur Hussain. Who was on duty in the Custom Hall as employees of Plant Protection Department. He is natural witness and no enmity is alleged by appellant with this witness. He has no reason to implicate appellant falsely. Complainant Farooq Mughal has no motive to implicate appellant and foist articles. The contention of appellant that he demanded receipt, therefore, false case was set up is not believable. Appellant was served with notice which bears his signature. He denied his signature but stated that he was made to sign some papers. There is no reason to discard the evidence of complainant on this point.
7. Too much has been stressed upon the luggage tags. The learned Special Judge has dealt with this point at length. In the circumstances of this case it is immaterial when appellant was carrying suit-cases and B was found in possession of Baggage which were opened and he was having keys.
Therefore, it is proved that he was responsible for bringing contraband into Pakistan.
8. Upshot of the above discussion is that case against the appellant has been proved and he has rightly been convicted. In the result his appeal is dismissed. Appellant is on bail. He shall be remanded to custody and should serve out the sentence.