IMTIAZ ALI TAJ Versus STATE
ORDER
1. Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 689 of 1993. 691 of 1993. 693 of 1993 and 695 of 1993. These applications are granted subject to all just exceptions.
2. Miscellaneous Applications Nos.690 of 1993. 692 of 1993. 694 of 1993. 696 of 1993 and 698 of 1993. These are applications made on behalf of the applicant Imtiaz Ali-Taj seeking to recall the bail, dated 24-2-1993, by which order, five bail applications moved on behalf of the applicant were rejected. Further prayer in these applications is to decide afresh said applications on consideration of the grounds taken in these applications.
2. Briefly the facts are that applicant Imtiaz Ali Taj and co-accused are involved in Crime No.10(19)DV-INV-MISC/91/A&B registered on 24-2-1992 for offence under section 32 punishable under section 1560)(14)(82) of the Customs Act, 1969. Separate challans have been put up against the applicant and co-accused and in five such cases applicant being the accused filed separate applications. The first application filed by applicant and some others was rejected by the trial Court on 12-3-1992 against which bail application filed before this Court was rejected on 13-4-1992. Bail application was repeated before the trial Court but again it was rejected on 17-9-1992. The second bail application before this Court was dismissed as withdrawn by order, dated 17-11-1992 because in view of five challans submitted against applicant he wanted to file five bail applications before the trial Court. Applicant, therefore, filed separate applications before the trial Court but such were again dismissed on 6-12-1992. Applicant then filed five bail applications before this Court being Special Criminal Bail Applications Nos.85 to 89 of 1992 and the same were dismissed by a consolidated order, dated 24-2-1993. It is in the background of these facts that present applications have been filed seeking review/recall of the order, dated 24-2-1993 and for decision for bail applications on merits.
3. At the very outset learned Advocate for the applicant was required to answer if order, dated 24-2-1993 passed by me could be recalled and such query was made on an objection by learned counsel appearing for the State on behalf of DA.-G. As to the powers of this Court for review/recall of the orders, learned Advocate referred to the cases of Gulzar Hassan Shah v. Ghulam Murtaza and 4 others P L D 1970 SC 355, Ejaz Qadeer v. The-State and another 1975 P Cr. L J 471 and Alam Khan and 3 others v. The State 1993 M L D 536. In all these reported cases it was held that the High Court could in its inherent jurisdiction recall or reverse an order made by it. The contention of the learned Advocate for the applicant is supported by the view taken in all these judgments. This view was also taken by me while deciding Special Criminal Application No. 73 of 1992 Fateh Ali and another v. The State 1993 P Cr. L J 1124.
4. The facts of the case were narrated by me in my detailed order, dated 24-2-1993 and need not be repeated. While passing the said order, dated 24-2-19931 had taken into consideration a letter dated 15-1-1992 addressed by applicant to Assistant Director, Directorate of Inspection (Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax) available in the investigation file in which it was mentioned by applicant that entire business in Quetta Branch including an export under reference had been exclusively handled by him. On the basis of such letter applicant was treated as a beneficiary and consequently bail was refused to him. It has now been contended that applicant was only an employee of the exporters and had replied some letters issued by the Customs Authorities and no amount or any part thereof received by the exporters was shared by the applicant. The names in which the cheques for the claim of Duty Drawback were issued were those of exporters and were deposited in their accounts with which applicant was not concerned in any manner. A number of documents have also been filed which are in the nature of commercial invoices and most of which are signed by co-accused exporter Qurban Ali and by filing these documents the purpose of learned Advocate in referring to them is to show that applicant Imtiaz Ali Taj was not the beneficiary of the amount illegally paid to the exporters, namely, Haroon Rasheed and Qurban Ali.
5. My attention is also invited to the order, dated 9-5-1993 passed on the bail applications of co-accused Haroon Rasheed and Qurban Ali whose bail applications were dismissed and a direction was given to the trial Court to examine complainant within two months but before the period of two months expired on 8-7-1993 the accused Haroon Rasheed and Qurban Ali moved Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan and filed Criminal Petitions Nos.13-K to 17-K of 1993 in which the following order was passed:--
6. "The above period of two months will expire on 8-7-1993, we order by consent that the case will be taken up by the trial Court on 29-6-1993 instead of 3-7-1993 when the complainant will be examined by the trial Court.
7. Petitions are dismissed with the above observation."
8. Since complainant was not examined as directed by this Court or by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, co-accused Haroon Rasheed and Qurban Ali repeated bail applications before this Court and they were granted bail by my learned brother Shoukat H. Zubedi, J. by order, dated 8-7-1993. In view of this, applicant's learned Advocate had contended that since the exporters who were the beneficiary of the amount of duty drawback claim allegedly paid to them in an unlawful manner arc grunted bail, applicant who was merely an employee of the exporters would also be entitled to bail _A particularly for the reason that he has been in jail for more than 17 months anti is ailing. Some documents showing that applicant is ailing have also been placed on record. Co-accused Khalid Aziz, Inspector Customs, Mumtaz Ali Changezi, Assistant Collector of Customs, Ali Ahmad Baloch, Superintendent of Customs, Shahid Hussain, Customs Officer, M. Nawaz Butt, Collector of Customs, Abdul Majeed Askani, Clearing and Forwarding Agent and the Exporters Haroon Rasheed and Qurban Ali have since been granted bail. These applications have been opposed by Mr. Farrukh Zia Shaikh, learned Advocate appearing for the State, and his contentions are the same which are discussed in my order, dated 24-2-1993.
9. In view of all that is stated above I am inclined to allow these applications. The order, dated 24-2-1993 is recalled and applicant Imtiaz Ali Taj is granted bail. He shall be released on furnishing one surety in the sum of Rs.5,00,000 (Rupees five lacs) in each case with P.R. bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
3. No further orders are called for on Miscellaneous Applications Nos.860 of 1993 and 861 of 1993.
10. N.H.Q./I-231/K Bail allowed.