STATE through Deputy AttorneyGeneral vs NAEEM RAZA WIRK
The State sought leave to appeal against the dismissal in limine of its criminal appeal by the High Court, which had upheld the acquittal of the respondent by the trial court. The trial court had acquitted the respondent of smuggling charges involving contraband goods recovered from a vehicle on the ground that dividing the assessed C.I.F. value of the goods between the two co-accused brought the individual value below the minimum statutory requirement for taking cognizance. The core legal question was whether the liability for the value of recovered goods could be divided among multiple accused persons for the purpose of determining jurisdiction and cognizance. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contention raised a question of law and public importance regarding the joint liability of accused persons for jurisdictional purposes. The key principle laid down is that questions involving the proper interpretation of statutory thresholds and joint liability for cognizance of smuggling offences warrant a full hearing on appeal.
- Whether the liability of accused persons can be divided to determine the minimum value requirement for taking cognizance of an offence?
- Does an acquittal based on the division of liability among co-accused warrant the grant of leave to appeal?
- Section 171, Customs Act 1969
ORDER
' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.---State seeks leave to appeal against dismissal in limine of Cr. Appeal No,63 of 1991, vide order dated 3-8-1991, on the ground that judgment of acquittal of trial Court does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity. Briefly stated the relevant facts giving rise to this petition are as under-
2. On 7-7-1988 Customs staff stopped Pick-up No,LHM-5469 belonging to Narcotic Control Board and on search two refrigerators, three air-conditioners, one Klashnikov and 1,300 cartridges were recovered. Vehicle was being driven by respondent Naeem Raza while Tariq Malik, Flying Officer was sitting with him. Tariq Malik was handed over to his own department for further action according to law. Naeem Raza was taken in custody and was served with notice under section 171 of the Customs Act. After necessary investigation challan was presented before Special Judge (Central) Anti-Corruption, Anti-Smuggling and Immigration, Peshawar.
3.In the trial Court four P.Ws. Were examined. Respondent did not ' produce any witness but examined himself in defence. Trial Court acquitted respondent on the ground that according to the assessment certificate, C.I.F. Value of the goods came to Rs,16,390 and if that is divided into two parts, each of the two accused would be liable for the amount which is less than Rs, 10,000 which is minimum requirement under the law for taking cognizance of the case. In support, reliance is placed on unreported judgment of the High Court of Lahore in Cr. Misc.
No,583/0/76 titled Mohammad Qasim and others v. The State.
4. High Court has agreed with the finding of the trial Court and has held that trial Court has rightly divided liability among two accused and acquitted respondent of the charge in question and on that short ground appeal is dismissed in limine.
5. Choudhry Ijaz Ahmed, learned Deputy Attorney-General has submitted before us that both the Courts below have erred in coming to conclusion, as they did, that liability could be divided into two parts amongst accused persons for the purpose of determining the question of cognizance and jurisdiction. According to learned DA.-G. In such circumstances, accused can be held jointly liable for the purpose of jurisdiction and cognizance of the offence.
6. Since contention mentioned above raises question of interpretation and of public importance, we grant leave. Let bailable warrants in the sum of Rs,10,000 be issued against respondent Naeem Raza to be served and executed to the satisfaction of the trial Court.