NAZAR MUHAMMAD vs THE STATE
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Special Appellate Court under the Customs Act, which upheld the petitioner's conviction under Section 156(89) of the Customs Act 1969 for the possession of illicit foreign liquor, while reducing the sentence from two years to one year of rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution's case rested on the recovery of 48 bottles of liquor from a vehicle driven by the petitioner, followed by the recovery of an additional 541 bottles based on his information. The petitioner challenged the conviction, but the Supreme Court noted that the petitioner had not pressed the appeal on merits before the Appellate Court, limiting his request solely to the reduction of the sentence. Finding no substance in the petition and noting that the Appellate Court had already adopted a lenient approach regarding the sentencing, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal. The judgment reaffirms that where an appellant fails to contest the merits of a conviction before the lower appellate forum, they are precluded from re-opening those factual findings in a subsequent petition for leave to appeal.
- Can a petitioner challenge the merits of a conviction in the Supreme Court if the appeal before the lower appellate court was not pressed on merits?
- Does the reduction of a sentence by an appellate court preclude further challenge to the conviction in a petition for leave to appeal?
- Section 156(89), Customs Act 1969
' MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J.---Nazar Muhammad petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the judgment of the Special Appellate Court under Customs Act dated 21-12-1993 whereby his conviction under section 156(89) recorded by Special Judge Customs was maintained but his sentence was reduced from two years' R.I. To one year R.I. Maintaining the sentence of fine and with this modification his appeal was dismissed.
2. The prosecution version was that on 3-2-1991 at 3-45 p.m. Car No,285-379 Karachi driven by the petitioner was intercepted by a police party and 48 bottles of foreign liquor were recovered from it.
Thereafter, the petitioner led to the recovery of 541 bottles of foreign liquor from Kharotabad. After the usual investigation he was sent up to stand his trial.
3. The prosecution examined four witnesses to substantiate the recovery of illicit liquor from the petitioner. The petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge and maintained that he was falsely implicated by the police.
4. Relying on the prosecution evidence the learned trial Judge convicted third sentenced the petitioner as mentioned above. His findings were affirmed by the Appellate Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to argue that the recovery of illicit liquor was not established but when confronted with the observation made by the Appellate Court that the appeal before it was not pressed on merits and only prayer for reduction of sentence was made, he had not much to say. The learned Appellate Court has already taken a very lenient view in the matter reducing the sentence from two years to one year R.I. There is no substance in this petition and the same dismissed.