1. ' This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment, dated 8-6-1980 delivered by learned Special Judge (Customs and Taxation) Karachi, whereby he has convicted the appellant for offence under section 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act,, 1969 and has sentenced him to R.I. For three months and a fine of Rs, 5,000 in default further R.I. For 11 months. By the same Judgment the other two co-accused namely Ghulam Rasool and Haibat Khan have been acquitted.
2. ' Briefly stated the relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that P.W.1 Amanat Javed, S.H.O., Drigh Colony, P.S. While investigating some other case came to the compound of Malik Qamarul Hag on Plot No, 288, Millat Town, New Abadi, Karachi and found appellant Muhammad Yousuf and other two acquitted co-accused namely Ghulam Rasool and Haibat Khan displaying an Indian Film on V.C.R. He seized the V.C.R. And took accused persons mentioned above in custody. He recorded statements of witnesses and after completing the other steps of investigation presented the challan in the Court.
3. ' In the trial Court prosecution has examined four witnesses in support of its case. P.W.1 Malik Aijz who testified that he sew Indian film and paid Rs, 15 P.W.2 is Munno, Mashir who has attested Mashirnama of arrest and recovery Exh. 5/A and 5/B. P.W.3 is Muhammad Siddiq, appraiser who valued the property in question and issued such certificate Exh. 8/A. P.W.4 is Amanat Javed, S.H.O.
4. Who has investigated the case.
5. ' In the trial Court appellant Muhammad Yousuf has admitted ownership and possession of V.C.R.
6. And denied displaying of Indian film. He produced receipt. Acquitted co-accused Ghulam Rasool and Haibat Khan both stated that V.C.R. Belonged to appellant Muhammad Yousuf and both of them that day were sitting in his house when it was raided by the Police and V.C.R. Was taken away.
7. ' Appellant Muhammad Yousuf has examined Ghani son of Ismail as D.W .1 who has fully supported the' plea taken by appellant and this witness has signed receipt Exh. 11-A.
8. 'Trial Court has acquitted co-accused Ghulam Rasool and Haibat Khan on the ground that they were only concerned in the displaying of Indian film but did not know that the V.C.R. Was smuggled but convicted the present appellant, on the ground that D.W. Ghani being friend of Muhammad Yousuf has deposed falsely in order to save Muhammad Yousuf and receipt Exh. 11/A is a forged document and receipt Exh. 11/B does not necessarily pertain to V.C.R. Involved in this case.
9. Finding of the trial Court is inconsistent with the record. There is no evidence available on the record to show that V.C.R. :n question had been smuggled. Appellant Muhammad Yousuf had taken up the ple right from the beginning that the V.C.R. In question belongs to himA and he is owner thereof and produced receipt which was not accepted during the investigation. Such question was put to I.O. In the cross-examination which has been denied by him. It appears from the impugned judgment that while discussing the case of appellant Muhammad Yousuf, trial Court has dilated upon the evidence of D.W. Ghani and has subjected the same to very minute scrutiny.
10. General principle of law is that it is the bounden duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond doubt against the accused and if the evidence produced by the prosecution is defective and is unwholesome or unsatisfactory or inconclusive then the case against the accused would be deemed to have not been proved and any doubt left over would provide benefit to the accused. In this case the charge is under section 156(8)(89) of the Customs Act, 1969 which relates to possession of smuggled goods. V.C.R. Was found and it is alleged that the same is smuggled.
11. Appellant who is owner of the V.C.R. Has claimed ownership thereof and has admitted possession thereof and has further produced documentary evidence to show his ownership and on top of it has also-produced the defence witness wh has attested the receipt. Exh. 11/B is the baggage receipt issued by c Customs which shows that V.C.R. Model No, 9300 (Akai) was imported by Mr. Siddiq Ahmed and his Passport No, is also given therein as 443940. This receipt further shows that Rs, 5,000 were paid as duty. This is an official document. Further evidence furnished by appellant is that he had purchased V.C.R. From Mr. Siddiq Ahmad who had issued to him receipt for the same which is Exh. 11/A on the record. In this receipt also description of V.C.R. Is given as Model No, 9300 (Akai). This receipt is signed by Mr. Siddiq Ahmad son of Ahmad and his Passport Number is also given. It is further signed by two marginal witnesses Kassim son of Ghani and Ghani son of Ismail.
12. There is nothing on the record to show that both receipts are forged. Deposition of this witness is very clear on this point. According to this witness, he was present when appellant purchased V.C.R.
13. From Siddiq. He was present in the house of Siddiq at the time of transaction. Siddiq handed over receipt of Customs and then signed another receipt in favour of appellant which was attested by two witnesses including him. There is nothing in the cross-examination of this witness to show that he has given false evidence.
14. For the facts and reasons stated above, I feel inclined to accept the plea taken by appellant that he is owner of the V.C.R. In question and I also accept documentary evidence produced by him and depositio of D.W. Ghani. I, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and acquit the appellant. In the result appeal is allowed. Appellant is on bail and his bail bond stands discharged.