AZIZ JAMIL Versus THE STATE

1. This is an application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. for quashment of proceedings pending against the applicant before the learned District Judge, Karachi, under section 9 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. The allegations against the applicant No.1 are that he and his Company had received a sum 3,50,000 US Dollars, which in fact was not disclosed by him in return filed pertaining to the year. 1977-78 and had failed to repatriate the foreign exchange amount US $ 3,50,000 held by him abroad during the period of May, 1976 to December, 1976 as well as the interest income amounting to $ 7,765.12 received on the said bank deposit, and thereby had violated the provisions of section 9 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947. The applicant moved an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge, Karachi, but the same was dismissed on 2-8-1983. The present application has been filed for quashment of the, above proceedings.

2. I have heard Mr. Raja Qureshi, learned counsel appearing for the applicants and Mr. A.K. Jatoi, learned counsel appearing for the State.

3. It was contended by Mr. Raja Qureshi that the advance commission paid to the applicant No.1 was kept by him in term deposit from May, 1976 to December, 1976, and since the contract did not materialise, the principal amount was returned by him to the Bowing Company. As far as the amount of $ 7.767 being interest was concerned, the applicant has already deposited the same with the authorised Bank on 26-8-1987. The proceedings were initiated on F.I.R. although a. complaint had to be filed under the law.

4. Mr. A.K. Jatoi, learned counsel appearing for the State has contended that the very fact that the applicant has deposited the amount of interest after 10 years shows that he was guilty for the offence alleged against him. That looking to the above aspect of the case, the applicant can apply for the withdrawal of the case before the trial Court. He has further contended that the applicant is not available in Pakistan and, therefore, his application cannot be heard in his absence.

5. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel and have gone through the documents produced with the application.

6. In view of the fact that the application for acquittal was moved at initial stage, the learned trial Judge was right in holding that since no evidence was recorded, from the F.I.R. prima facie case appeared to have been made out under section 9 read with section 23 of F.E.R. Act. Disputed questions of fact are involved in the present case, and therefore. I am also of the considered view that it will be appropriate that some material witnesses be examined before the question of acquittal of the applicant can be considered.

7. In view of the above discussion, the above application is dismissed for the time being. The learned trial Judge is directed to proceed with the case expeditiously as the case is very old one. However, the applicant will be at liberty to move an application under section 265-K or 249-A, Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Judge after three material witnesses are examined.

8. S.A./A-311/K Application dismissed.