SADRUDDIN ABDULLAH GANGJI vs THE STATE

ORDER

1. ' MRS. QAISER IQBAL, J.---This order governs Criminal Miscellaneous Application No,260 of 2008 filed by the applicant arising out of the order passed by learned Incharge Special Judge, (Central)

2. Karachi in Case No,14/2002 (The State v. Sadruddin Abdullah Gangji and others) thereby an application under section 249-A, Cr. P.C. Filed by the applicant for his acquittal was dismissed.

3. ' The facts constituting the offence as disclosed in F.I.R. No,2 of 1997 are that on receipt of report from Director, F.I.A, Karachi Zone vide his office letter No, SE14/96/DKZ-119/96 dated 17-12-1996 and 24-12-1996 through Deputy Director F:I.A, CC-II, Karachi an Enquiry No,42 of 1996 was registered in the said circle, reveals that the importers Messrs West Pakistan Tank Terminal (Pvt.) Ltd. And Messrs Pakistan Tankage Co. (Pvt) Ltd. Through its Directors namely Sadruddin Abdullah Gangji and Hasham. Sadruddin Abdullah Gangji owners of oil terminals located in Kemari import RBD (Refined, Bleached, Deodorized) palm oil from Malaysia and stored the same in bounded warehouse of Messrs Pakistan Tankage Co. (Pvt.) Ltd., and in their own store known as Gangji's (PTC) Terminal being approved Customs bounded terminal/warehouse.

4. During the period from January, 1993 to October, 1996 the oil thus imported was liable to be charged with customs duties and taxes. The applicant in collusion of the preventive Collectorate and other public functionaries during their posting, by abusing their official position caused huge loss to the Government exchequer facilitated the commission of crime by conniving and abetting in the illegal removal of oil with the active collaboration of Clearing Agent and Terminal Manager.

5. The owners of Messrs Pakistan Tankage Co. And Messrs West Pakistan Tank Terminal have connived with Terminal Manager Malik Altaf, clearing and forwarding Agents Messrs Moorad Shipping Agency namely Abdul Sattar Moorad, Arshad Moorad and Ismail and Customs Officials Hassan Imam, the then Collector (Preventive), Afzal Amir Shah, Ali Zaheer Jaffri, Principal Appraiser, Edward Johnson Howell Examiner, Sardar Babar Durrani, Examiner thereby caused loss to the Government exchequer to Rs.613.550 million by committing offence, schedule under sections 409/420/467/468/471/201/109/34, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of PCA-II, 1947.

6. Learned counsel for applicant has contended that after the interim challan was submitted the charge against the applicant and co-accused was framed on 3-4-2002 the case was bifurcated into six cases on the application of accused Hassan Imam subsequent thereof no progress was made on account of extraneous coniderations. It is next urged that Criminal Miscellaneous.

7. Application No,67 of 2004 was decided by this Court on 3-2-2005 therefore registration of F.I.R. No,2 of 2007 against the applicant amounts to double jeopardy as proceedings in F.I.R. No,22 of 2003 were quashed. It is further contended that during the pendency of F.I.R. No,22 of 2003 material questions were taken into consideration whereas F.I.R. No,2 of 1997 also relates to the causing of the loss to public exchequer by the applicant in collusion with the employees of Customs Department.

8. It is next urged that after the dispute was resolved between Government of Pakistan and Pakistan Investment (Pvt.) Limited through its Chairman and Directors of Managing Director applicant Asif Gangji of Messrs West Pakistan Tank Terminal (Pvt) Ltd. And Pakistan Tankage Co. (Pvt.) Limited all the liabilities mentioned in the schedule of property attached with the agreement dated 9-11-1997 a sum of Rs.2,000,000,000 was delivered to Government of Pakistan in full and final settlement of outstanding liability of Gangji Group as the Joint Secretary Accountability and Coordination cell vide letter dated 24-1-1998 endorsed that the name of the applicant be excluded from the array of the accused in F.I.R. No, 2 of 1997, dated 3-5-1997 of F.I.A. Karachi and F.I.R. No,40 of 1997 therefore by no stretch of imagination even if the trial is allowed to be linger on, no fruitful purpose shall be achieved.

9. ' Mr. Ahmed Ali Shah, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the offences with which the applicant is charged are distinguishable from the offence which was the subject-matter of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No, 67 of 2004. However, he sought time on two occasions in respect of the legal opinion furnished to the Government of Pakistan by the then Secretary Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs and the agreement executed between Government of Pakistan and the applicant yet he was unable to refute any one of the document placed/executed by functionaries of Government of Pakistan.

10. ' I have considered the arguments advanced at bar, perused the record of the case.

11. It is admitted fact that the applicant was acquitted in Criminal Miscellaneous. No,67 of 2004 by a Division Bench of this Court, such order was not assailed before the higher forum thus attained finality. It is well-established that where there is no possibility of conviction of an accused the trial cannot be allowed to be lingered on which otherwise amounts to an abuse of the process of the Court. In support of the above proposition reliance is placed in case of Mian Muneer Ahmad v. The State (1985 SCM R 257) and Meraj Khan and other's case (2000 SCM R 122).

12. ' Reverting to the facts of the present case the allegations against the applicants are that he in connivance with the co-accused, customs officials had stored the palm oil in the tanks owned by his company without payment of Customs Duty. It is apprised from the agreements placed on record that, the issue stood settled between the applicant and Government of Pakistan as substantial sum was paid towards the Customs duty to Central Board of Revenue and the Ministry of Interior Affairs. Learned Standing counsel was not in a position to confirm the documents available on record by the applicant executed by the Authority nor had denied the factum that a sum of Rs.502014229 was deposited by the applicant as is admitted by Assistant Collector of Customs Appraisement Establishment in its letter dated 5-11-2003.

13. ' Learned Standing Counsel could not justify a sum of Rs.613.550 depicted in First Information Report as against the deposit amount of Rs.502014229 as per correspondence placed on record, after a substantial amount was recovered, no fruitful purpose would be achieved if the trial is allowed to be lingered on as the prosecution is not interested in pursuing the cause and the matter is subjudice for the last eleven years without any trial nor there is likelihood of the conclusion of trial in near future.

14. ' For the foregoing facts, and circumstances F.I.R. No,2/1997 and proceedings arising thereto seems to be an abuse of the process of law therefore, proceedings against the applicant hereby stand quashed.