The appellants, Rozedar Khan (aged 31 years) and Inayat Masih (aged 46 years) were convicted by the Special Judge (Customs), Lahore, of an offence under section 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fines of Rs.2,000 each. In default of payment of the fine they were to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. They have filed separate appeals against their convictions and sentences. These appeals are being disposed of together.
2. According to the prosecution in the early hours of 31st December, 1983, at about 3.00 or 3.30 a.m. a picket of the Chenab Rangers found the two appellants alongwith a number of other persons present at a place which was 50 yards away, from the Indo-Pakistan border within the area covered by Post-Kangra. On seeing the picket the appellant and their companions started running.
The appellants were captured by the picket while their companions managed to make their escape good. Rozedar Khan appellant was found with seven bottles of Indian liquor by the brand name of Aristocrat and eight woollen Shawls of Indian origin. Inayat Masih, appellant had with him a substantial quantity of chemical powder which was later identified by the Chemical Examiner as 'B: Napthylamine' powder. On an incident report prepared by Capt. Tariq Mahmood (P.W. 1) who was heading the picket a case under the Customs Act was registered against the appellants at Police Station, Narang on 31-12-1983 at 2-15 p.m.
3. The appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge of smuggling and alleged that they had been falsely implicated in the case. They produced four witnesses apart from appearing themselves in their own defence.
4. The case of the prosecution against the appellants rests mainly upon the testimony of Capt.
Tariq Mahmood (P.W. 1) and Inspector Raja Muhammad Mushtaq (P.W. 2). Both stated that they had found 7 the appellants with a number of other persons at a close distance from the Indo- Pakistan border. They further deposed that at the time of their capture Rozedar Khan had Indian Shawls and bottles of Indian liquor in his possession while Inayat Masih had chemical powder.
None of these witnesses was acquainted with the appellants prior to the incident in question and there was thus no motive for them to perjure themselves against the appellants.
5. The version of Rozedar Khan was that he had a quarrel with a Havaldar of the Rangers over the payment of the price of poultry and eggs which had been supplied to the Rangers. It was on account of this quarrel that he had been falsely implicated in this case. He produced Muhammad Aslam (D.W. 4) in support of his version. It is to be noticed that Capt. Tariq Mahmood (P.W. 1) and Inspector Raja Muhammad Mushtaq (P.W. 2) are fairly senior officers of the Rangers. It is most unlikely that they would, under the influence of a mere Havaldar, set up a false case against Rozedar Khan with whom they had no enmity whatsoever. I am, therefore, not prepared to accept the version of Rozedar Khan.
6. The story of Inayat Masih appellant is that he had been involved in this case at the instance of one Azhar Rajput under whom he had served for sometime. Azhar Rajput owed him Rs:1,200 byway of salary. Azhar Rajput was an influential person of the locality. As he wanted to avoid payment of the salary he had involved him in this case. This again is an unconvincing story. There is nothing on the record which may, establish any link between Azhar Rajput and the senior officials of the Rangers. I would accordingly reject his version also.
7. The other witnesses produced in defence by the appellants merely testified to their good character. Their testimony does not detract in any manner from the version put by the prosecution.
8. On the basis of the statements of Capt, Tariq Mahmood (P.W. 1) and Inspector Raja Muhammad Mushtaq (P.W. 2) I am satisfied that the appellants were arrested from near the Indo-Pakistan border while in possession of goods which had been smuggled into Pakistan. The place at which they were seen as well as the time when they were captured do indicate that the appellants had themselves smuggled these goods into Pakistan. They were thus rightly convicted by the learned Special Judge of an offence under section 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act. The sentences awarded to them are by no means excessive. Their appeals are accordingly dismissed.