Shaikh MUHAMMAD YAMIN vs The STATE

1. MUHAMMAD GUL, J.-In March 1967, a consignment of 25 crates of fresh kinoos was despatched from the Karachi Airport to be carried by P.I.A. To Heathrow Airport, London. The necessary documents were presented to the Custom Authority at Karachi Airport who after the initial examination of 5 % of the goods allowed the goods to be carried by air. At the destination however, on a further check in the B. O. A. C. Cargo warehouse, five of the crates yielded 95-- lbs. Of cannabis resin (charas) weighing 95-- lbs. Two Pakistanis, namely, Abdul Hamid Butt and Mohammad Younus, who had called at the B. O. A. C. Cargo warehouse to get clearance of the consignment were arrested and later convicted.

2. As a sequel to the above incident which was publicised both in the English and the local press, a case was registered by the Directorate of Customs, Intelligence and Investigation Branch, against the consignor. During the investigation, it was discovered that Mohammad Mobin son of Mohammad Yasin was closely concerned in the transaction. After his arrest, he made a judicial confession in which he named his associates in the crime and pursuant to the clues he gave for further investigation Mohammad Yamin, petitioner herein, was also arraigned as one of the accused. The prosecution evidence in the case has since been recorded and the petitioner along with others has been charged with the offences under section 19 read with section 167 (37-A) of the Customs Act.

3. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate charging him as aforesaid, the petitioner moved a revision under sections 435 and 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code for the quashment of the charge against him. The revision has been dismissed. Hence this petition for leave.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there is no evidence worth the name against the petitioner. It was submitted that the petitioner was neither named in the F. I. R. Nor by Mohammad Mobin in his confessional statement, and that the only evidence against the petitioner was that he was shown in the records of the Telephone & Telegraph Department to have booked two telephone calls to Mr. A. H. Butt who was alleged to have been convicted by the London Court. That evidence, it was stressed, was wholly inadequate to make out a prima facie case against the petitioner.

5. We are not impressed by the argument. The mere fact that the petitioner has been formally charged under certain penal provisions of law does not necessarily mean that he stands convicted, or condemned. He has merely been put on notice of the allegations against him to help him to prepare his defence. If, as it is argued on his behalf, there is no credible evidence to connect the petitioner with the despatch of the offending consignment from Karachi to London, then he has nothing to be afraid of and then there is no reason why the trial Magistrate should not record a judgment of acquittal in his favour. However that may be, it is not denied that some evidence has been produced which tends to connect the petitioner with the incident. Therefore, it is not a case of total want of evidence. This precludes interference by this Curt at this stage. Accordingly we dismiss this petition.