Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
2004 P C R L J 102

JAVED IQBAL vs THE STATE

Citation2004 P C R L J 102
CourtSindh High Court
Case No.Special Criminal Bail Application No,10 of 2003
Date2003-05-30
Judge(s)Muhammad Ashraf Leghari
ResultBail refused

ORDER

' The applicant is facing trial in the Court of Special Judge (Customs and Taxation), Karachi in Case No,3 of 2003 for an offence under section 156(1)(9)(14) and (86) of the Customs Act, 1969 in Crime No,SI/Misc./018/2003-AIR registered by the Collectorate of Customs (Appraisement) Custom House, Karachi on 11-2-2003.

2. Precisely the facts giving rise to this bail application are that Messrs Blue Apple International, Sialkot imported a consignment declaring it as Plastic Toy Rings, in container No,4MU-6217016 vide IGM No,137/2003 dated 23-1-2003 Index No,23 Messrs M.A. Land Transport Company (Pvt.) Limited filed transshipment Permit No,16749. Dated 28-1-2003 for transshipment of the said container from Karachi Port to Sambrial Dry Port. On 4-2-2003 when it reached at Sambrial where it was being checked by the Customs Authorities. The said container exploded and as a result of which it took 18 human lives and destroyed the other property. After the incident a case was registered by Appraisement Collectorate at Karachi, alleging that the container instead of toy rings was containing explosive material and the declaration made before the Customs Authorities at Karachi in regard to the plastic rings was false. Also false declaration about the stuff in the container was filed at the time of filing transshipment permit.

3. During the course of investigation, it transpired that the applicant was head of firm namely Messrs Izoris Trading (the supplier) who had shipped the stuff from Dubai as suppliers. He was then taken into custody. It was further revealed that the importing firm Messrs Blue Apple International is owned by Ansar Bashir. Interim challan has already been submitted but the matter is still under investigation.

4. Bail application filed by applicant was dismissed by trial Court whereafter the present application is presented before this Court.

5. I have heard Mr. M. Ilyas Khan learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Mahmood Aslam Rizvi learned Standing Counsel.

6. Learned counsel for applicant has referred to certain documents, the one of which is certificate from Hunter Freight Services dated 19-2-2003 which demonstrates that container in question was booked by Messrs Irfan Machaira for Karachi and directed them to dispatch the container to one Fakhruddin Ji Ibrahim Alhindi's ware-house whose contact No, is 5-3331051 and stuffed his container here and not in their ware-house. Applicant Javed Iqbal had no link with him but the aforesaid Machaira used the invoice of Messrs Izoris Trading Establishment. In fact this establishment had no information about its shipment. He has referred to a document which shows that applicant was working was Accountant Clerk at H.A.F. For a basic salary of Rs,5,000 Dirahams with Messrs Izoris Trading Establishment. It is submitted that the applicant had left Dubai on 15-12- 2003 before container had left for Karachi. The applicant was neither exporter nor importer. No evidence was collected by the prosecution that any amount was paid to him for importing goods.

It is submitted that the offence with which the accused is charged is punishable for 3 years only and the documentary evidence which is being used against the applicant for connecting him with this crime is already with the police. The case of applicant requires further inquiry. Reliance is placed upon the cases of Saeed Ahmed v. The State 1996 SCM R 1132 and Ayaz Ahmed v. The State 2003 PCr.LJ 1340.

7. Mr. Mahmood Alam Rizvi learned Standing Counsel has opposed the bail plea of the applicant.

He has referred the same documents which have been relied upon by the defence. It is argued by the learned Standing Counsel that documents produced by the defence in support of their pleas themselves reveal that Messrs Izoris Trading Establishment was being managed by applicant. He had a resident visa of U.A.E. And Messrs Izoris Trading Establishment was being run by him. He managed all the documents in his defence but the same displays his linkage with Izoris Trading Co.

The applicant made a mis-declaration and smuggled the goods which were notified item. In fact the material was not toy rings but it was explosive which lost the lives of several innocents.

8. Numerous documents have been produced by the applicant to prove that he had no nexus with the consignment in question. Those documents show that he was working as Accountant with Messrs Izoris Trading Establishment at the monthly salary of Rs,5,000 Dirahams.

9. It must be mentioned here that the present is the case whose explosive material is alleged to have been brought in place of the stuff declared through documents.

10. Although it is contended that Izoris Trading had no knowledge in that context but the denial loses importance in view of the admitted fact that the invoice of Izoris Company was issued.

Documents on record connect the applicant with Izoris Trading Company and his frequent journey between Dubai and Pakistan supports the allegation that it is he who has been looking after the affairs of Izoris in Pakistan. Even the applicant does not claim someone else is looking after its affairs in Pakistan.

11. Therefore, the material on record shows that the applicant was the only person who imported the consignment to Pakistan.

12. It is one of the white collar crimes case which are usually committed in planned manner by well- organized persons and they work underhand mechanism. In such cases, the standard of evidence normally available in the ordinary criminal cases cannot be expected.

13. Through documents, the consignment in question was declared to be plastic toys rings but in fact it was the explosive material which had exploded and took 18 human lives. This act amounts to smuggling of explosive material which is an offence punishable under clause (8) of section 156(1) of Customs Act, 1969 which provides the punishment of 14 years.

14. The case-law cited at the bar has no relevance to the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

15. Since the applicant is prima facie person concerned with the offence under section 156(1)(8), he does not deserve the concession of bail. Bail application is dismissed.

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch