Daily SectionMarker

Misc SectionMarker

Weekly SectionMarker

Weekly SectionMarker

Pakistan's Internet Magazine
Herald
Dawn GroupMarker

Archive, Search, Feedback & HelpMarker

Weather
Dawn Classified



FrontPage National International Local Business KSE Forex Sports Editorial Opinion Letters Features Today's Cartoon PTV 2 Guide Cowasjee Ayaz Mazdak Review Dawn Magazine Young World Images Dawn Group Subscription To Advertise

DINA
Previous Story DAWN - the Internet Edition Next Story


March, 29 2005 Tuesday 18 Safar 1426



Record of conspiracy case sent to ATC


KARACHI, March 28: The Sindh High Court on Monday sent record and procedure of a case pertaining to conspiracy to assassinate President Pervaiz Musharaf to an Anti-Terrorism Court.

ATC, headed by Syed Aley Maqbool Rizvi, had sent the reference to the SHC, hearing the appeals of activists of Harkatul Mujahideen Al-Alami against conviction, seeking record and procedure of the case.

It was submitted that a supplementary challan against absconding co-accused Naved-ul-Hasan had been received by administrative judge of ATC and the court was requested to send the record.

Mohammad Imran, Mohammad Haneef, Waseem Akhtar, Mohammad Ashraf Khan, Sharib Arsalan Farooqui, Kamran, Mohammad Jamil, Habibullah Khatak, Amir and Navedul Hasan were named in the conspiracy case in an FIR lodged at Airport police station in 2002.

Allowing the reference, SHC’s division bench, comprising Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmany and Justice Azizullah M Memon, sent the reference to the ATC.

SMUGGLING CASE: By no stretch of imagination, gold and silver could be notified as goods essential to the life of community, held Sindh High Court in its judgment on a petition challenging a federal notification whereby goods essential to life of a community were identified for purpose of proviso to section 156 (1) (8) of the Custom Act.

Mohammad Hussain, facing charges of smuggling 160 tolas of gold before Special Judge Custom and Taxation, apprehending the mandatory punishment of whipping and minimum imprisonment of five years, questioned the federal government notification No S.R.O 117 (1)/83 dated Feb 12, 1983 with regard to sentence for smuggling the goods.

Federal government described six items as essential to life of community, including gold and silver and their ornaments, all sorts, excluding bona fide personal jewellery of a passenger.

His counsel S.M Aamir Naqvi contended that gold and silver could not by any means be considered to be essential to the life of the community and notification to the extent of inclusion of gold and silver as essential to life of community is ultra vires the powers of the federal ministry of law and justice.

Standing counsel Faisal Arab submitted that smuggling of gold and silver could have a very large effect on the economy of country, therefore, it might be possible to identify that such smuggling can affect the life of the community, requiring strict punishment.

The court, however, refused to accept the respondents’ argument as relevant statutory provisions do not speak of the impact of smuggling of type of goods, but merely enables the government to identify goods which may be considered essential to the life of the community.

The court observed: “Indeed the power to notify goods which might fall under the proviso was delegated to respondent No.2 (Secretary Ministry of Law & Justice), but all powers must be exercised strictly within the parameter laid down by the legislature.”

“Accordingly, we are of the considered view that by no stretch of imagination gold and silver could be notified as goods essential to the life of community,” SHC’s division bench, comprising Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed and Justice Khilji Arif Hussain, noted in its order observing such items is liable to be declared void in impugned notification.

Allowing the petition to above extent, the court, however, held that trial court judge will be competent to award, in the event of guilt of petitioner being established, such sentence as may be permissible under section 156 (1) (8) after taking all facts into consideration and it will be open to prosecution to seek an appropriate sentence keeping in view the impact of the petitioner’s offence.—PPI






Previous Story Top of Page Next Story

© The DAWN Group of Newspapers, 2005