MUHAMMAD AKRAM VS State, 2016 PTD-LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE 2616 (2015)

Customs Act (IV of 1969)---

----Ss. 156(1), (77), (81) & (82)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 498---Bail before-arrest, grant of---Principles---Accused, as Incharge of warehouse, was alleged to have released goods consignment on basis of fake documents submitted by owner of goods---Accused was not named in FIR, and his name had been introduced through supplementary statement---Supplementary statement, prima facie, had no value in eye of law---Accused had neither prepared fake documents in question nor had same been submitted by him for release of smuggled goods---Accused had released goods after receiving letter from concerned authority---Accused had, therefore, released goods while adopting proper procedure---Investigating officer had failed to establish any proximity of accused with owner of goods to substantiate allegations leveled against him---Owner of goods had already deposited whole tax evasion amount in Government Treasury---Owner of goods had also sworn affidavit to the effect that he had handed over documents for their onward processing---Prosecution had not established that accused had released goods with prior knowledge that documents were fake---Principal accused, owner of goods, had already been released on post-arrest bail---Accused was not beneficiary of impugned tax evasion; rather he had only dealt with documentation in releasing goods---Prosecution had also not leveled any allegations on accused that he had released goods after receiving illegal gratification and conniving with owner of goods---Accused had been made scapegoat to save skin of his high-ups---Accused was government servant, and there was no chance of his abscondance---Accused was not expected to tamper with prosecution evidence---Accused was not previous convict, nor involved in any criminal case---Investigation of case was complete---Nothing was to be recovered from accused---Application for bail was allowed accordingly.

Muhammad Ajmal Adil for Petitioner with Petitioner in person.

Ch. Imtiaz Elahi, Special Prosecutor for Customs with Ch. Saeed, Intelligence Officer with record.

ORDER

ABDUL SAMI KHAN, J.---Through this petition under section 498, Cr.P.C. Muhammad Akram petitioner has sought bail before arrest in case FIR No. 08/14, dated 26.11.2014 registered at Police Station I&P Branch, Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation FBR, Faisalabad in respect of offences under sections 156(1)(77)(81)(82) of the Customs Act, 1969.

2.After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it has been noticed by this Court that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name has been introduced in this case for the first time through a supplementary statement which prima facie has got no value in the eyes of law. It is a case of evasion of tax duty wherein the allegation leveled against the present petitioner by the prosecution is that the goods consignment in Pakistan (tiles quantity of 9524 meter-11199 sq.ft.) was released by him as Incharge of Ware-house on the basis of fake documents submitted by the owner of the goods. It is admitted at all hands that neither the petitioner has prepared the fake documents nor he has the same for releasing the alleged smuggled goods. He has received letter dated 21.05.2014 issued by the Superintendent (Imports), Customs Dry Port, Faisalabad through which it has been informed that the party has deposited Rs. 2438668/- as duty and taxes as well as redemption fine on the goods, therefore, while adopting the proper procedure the petitioner has released the goods. It is also significant to point out here that so far the Investigating Officer has failed to establish any proximity of the petitioner with the owner of the goods to substantiate the allegations leveled against him especially in the circumstances when the owner of the goods namely Muhammad Iqbal Saithi has already deposited the whole tax evasion amount in the Government Treasury and he has also sworn an affidavit to the effect that he had handed over the documents for their onward processing through PRAL to one Imran Asmat which affidavit is available in police file. Even the prosecution has not established the fact that the petitioner has got the goods released with prior knowledge that the documents on the basis of which the alleged smuggled goods being released are forged documents. Admittedly the above mentioned principal accused namely Muhammad Iqbal Saithi (owner of goods) has already been released on post-arrest bail vide order dated 01.12.2014 passed by learned Special Judge Customs, Lahore and the case of the present petition is at better footing. The petitioner is also not the beneficiary of impugned tax evasion rather he has only dealt with the documentation in releasing the goods. The prosecution has not levelled allegation upon the petitioner that he after receiving illegal gratification connived with the principal accused and thereafter released the goods in question, so in this eventuality the question whether the petitioner has knowingly released the goods on the basis of forged documents or he has connived with his co-accused to save tax duty to cause loss to the National exchequer is the question which would be resolved by the learned trial court at the time of trial after recording evidence in this case. A possibility cannot be ruled out of consideration that the petitioner has been made scapegoat only to save the skin of his high-ups. The petitioner is a government servant and there is no chance of his absconscion. He has already joined the investigation of this case, all the documents are with the prosecution and there is no chance that the petitioner would tamper with the prosecution evidence. The petitioner is previous non-convict, never involved in any criminal case, investigation qua him is complete, nothing is to be recovered from him, therefore, sending him in jail lock-up at this juncture would not serve any beneficial purpose.

3.For what has been discussed above this petition is, therefore, allowed and the ad-interim pre-arrest bail already allowed to the petitioner vide order dated 17.06.2015 is hereby confirmed subject to his furnishing of fresh bail bond in the sum of Rs. 100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.

SL/M-315/LBail allowed.