ABDUL HAMID Versus THE STATE

Abdul Hamid son of Abdur Rehman has appealed against his conviction under section 156(1)8 of the Customs Act, 1969 recorded by the learned Special Judge Customs, Lahore on 19-7-1992 whereby he was sentenced to suffer 5 years' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000 or in default to undergo further R.I. for a period of 6 months with benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.

2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 15-10-1991 the appellant (an Indian National) came to Railway Station Lahore for boarding Samjhota Express bound for India. In the Customs Hall, his luggage was checked and the strips of his suit-case were found to be of gold weighing 1,510 grams. Consequently, he was arrested and challaned.

3. The prosecution examined 6 witnesses to prove its case. Gulraiz Porter and Israr Hussain, -Inspector, Customs were examined to prove recovery of gold. The former did not support the prosecution and was consequently declared hostile. However, Israr Hussain P.W.4 deposed about the recovery and attested the recovery memo. Exh.P.A. Asmat AN Khan, Scientific Officer Pakistan Mint, Lahore P.W.2 carried out the assay test on the samples of gold and reported that they were of gold. Ch. Saeed Ahmad, Inspector, Customs P.W.3 had effected the recovery through memo. Exh.P.A. He had prepared the relevant report Exh.P.G. forming basis of the registration of the case. Amjid Ali Choudhary, Inspector, Customs investigated the case.

4. At the trial, the appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge-and denied the recovery and disowned the gold and stated that it had been planted on him. According to him, it belonged to some one else who was let off and instead he was falsely involved.

He chid not lead any evidence in defence.

5. Relying on the prosecution evidence, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above.

6. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that the prosecution evidence is discrepant with regard to the exact quantity of gold allegedly recovered and further that Gulraiz Akhtar P.W.1 had not supported the recovery.

7. It is an admitted position that the appellant was apprehended in the Customs Hall while he was about to board the train bound for India. Saeed Ahmad P.W.3 and Israr Hussain P.W.4, Customs Inspectors have fully proved the recovery of gold from the suit-case of the appellant.

8. Being Customs Inspectors on duty, their presence at the relevant time cannot be doubted. The mere fact that Gulraiz Akhtar Porter had not supported the prosecution on the point of recovery would not be sufficient to discard their testimony. The Customs Inspector had no enmity with the appellant to involve him in the case by planting such a huge quantity of gold on him. There appears to be no truth in the appellant's plea that the recovery was effected from someone else who was let off and instead he was implicated.

9. In the circumstances discussed above, the prosecution case stands fully established against the appellant. He was, therefore, rightly convicted and 8 properly punished. In consequence, the appeal is dismissed.

N.H.Q./A-274/L Appeal dismissed.