Ms. FARRAH NOOR VS State, 2014 PTD-LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE 1563 (2013)

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----S. 498---Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 2(s), 16, 18, 32(1) & (2), 156(1), (9), (14), & (82) & 178---Ad interim pre-arrest bail, confirmation of---Preparing false inspection report---Female customs inspector accused of preparing a false inspection report of a container regarding its contents, causing huge loss to the Government exchequer---Customs department and investigating officer were unable to produce any original documents/report containing signatures of accused---Accused was a lady and a government servant having service record of 25 years and apparently there was no criminal case against her except the present one---Offence alleged against accused was punishable with imprisonment of up to three years or fine or both, as such it did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497(1), Cr.P.C.---Accused was also not required for any further investigation---Interim pre-arrest bail already granted to accused was confirmed in circumstances.

(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----S. 498---Customs Act (IV of 1969), Ss. 2(s), 16, 18, 32(1) & (2), 156(1), (9), (14), & (82) & 178---Ad interim pre-arrest bail, confirmation of---Evasion of customs duty---Company belonging to accused lady allegedly cleared a container from Customs in connivance with a customs inspector causing a huge loss to the Government Exchequer---Accused subsequently paid the relevant duty, penalty and even the fine and her container had been released by Customs department---Clearing agent who had submitted documents in place of accused was still at large---Offence alleged against accused was punishable with imprisonment of up to three years or fine or both, as such it did not fall within the prohibitoryclause of S. 497(1), Cr.P.C---Accused was also not required for any further investigation---Interim pre-arrest bail already granted to accused was confirmed in circumstances.

Muhammad Inayat Ullah Cheema Noor for Petitioner with Petitioner in person

Mian Abdul Ghaffar for Petitioner with Petitioner in person. (in Criminal Miscellaneous No.4255-B of 2013).

Nadeem Mahmood Mian, Legal Advisor for Customs Department with Iftikhar Ali Shah Inspector/Investigator for Respondents.

ORDER

SH. NAJAM-UL-HASAN, J.---Through this single order Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4256-B of 2013 filed by Mst. Farrah Noor and Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4255-B of 2013 filed by Mst. Samina Naz are being disposed of together as both these petitions emanate from the same F.I.R. No. 30 dated 31-8-2012 under sections 156(1)(9)(14) & (82) read with sections 2(s), 16, 18, 32(1) & 32(2) and 178 the Customs Act, 1969 registered at Police Station Investigation and Prosecution Cell, Model Customs Collectorate, Custom House, Lahore.

2.It is the prosecution case that Mst. Farrah Noor petitioner was Customs Inspector and she was to inspect containers and to give a report that contents of such containers were according to the G.D. provided by the importer and clearing agent. On receiving secret information, the Collector Customs constituted a committee for rechecking the container which was booked by Heaven Enterprises and its clearing agent was the State Corporation and these containers were statedly inspected by Mst. Farrah Noor, petitioner. After inspection it transpired that contents of the container were absolutely different and as such the State had to face loss of Rs.11,89,289 and after including penalty it was to increase more than twenty six lac rupees. In F.I.R. name of Mst. Farrah Noor petitioner was not mentioned rather it was stated that the crime was committed with the connivance of Customs officials. The F.I.R. was registered against Heaven Enterprises and State Corporation alongwith Minhas and Ghulam Nabi. Later on it transpired that Heaven Enterprises is owned by Mst. Samina Naz, petitioner and as such she was also nominated. On query the investigator present in Court has informed the Court that contents of the container have now been released and the petitioner Samina Naz has paid the duty, penalty and even the fine.

3.Learned counsel for Farrah Noor, petitioner contends that the petitioner is Customs Inspector having a record of 25 years of honest and dutiful service and not a single case has ever been registered against her. Learned counsel has strongly emphasized that there is not a single document available with the Customs Department or on file of this case having indicating signatures or handwriting of the petitioner. It is stated that in absence of any original document involvement of this petitioner needs further inquiry. Learned counsel further states that possibility of the original document which has now been misplaced being prepared by some other person to falsely involve the petitioner cannot be ruled out and that the petitioner being a woman is entitled to certain exceptions. Learned counsel lastly contends that the offence alleged against the petitioner is at the most punishable with fine or with three years imprisonment or with both and keeping in view that no loss has been caused to the government in this matter the petitioner is entitled to bail and no useful purpose would be served by sending her to jail.

4.Learned counsel for Mst. Samina Naz, petitioner also argues on the similar footing with addition that the declarationa were made by the clearing agent and petitioner was not aware of it; that now the container has been released; that no loss to the government has occurred; that the investigation is complete and person of the petitioner is no mere required for the purpose of investigation and trial is likely to be concluded very soon. Further submits that as the penalty and even fine has been paid and that the petitioner being woman deserves to be granted bail specially when she is not previous convict.

5.On the other hand learned Legal Advisor for the Customs Department has strongly opposed grant of bail on the ground that Mst. Farrah Noor petitioner was a Customs employee and she was duly authorized to inspect the container. She was nominated for this purpose and later on after inspection she submitted a report and such report is available in the computer record of the department and photo copy of the computer record is available and original has been malafidely misplaced by her colleagues just to save her skin as they are hands in glove in such like matters. It stated that duty challan was prepared and the duty was paid in accordance with the report prepared by Mst. Farrah Noor petitioner which later on found to be factually incorrect report as contents of the container were different than the one which was mentioned by her in the report and because of her false report the government would have suffered a huge loss so she is not entitled at least to pre-arrest bail. Further states that so far as Mst. Samina Naz petitioner is concerned, it is contended that she has paid the duty and penalty and even the fine so her involvement is evident; that she is beneficiary, she submitted false declaration; later on some other material and things were recovered from the container for which duty had not been paid and thus she is not entitled to any exception. However, admits that now the duty, fine and even the penalty in respect of making false declaration has been paid by her and the container has been released.

7.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. The learned Legal Advisor and even the Investigating Officer remained unable to produce any documents indicating signatures of petitioner Farrah Noor rather it has been informed that the original file has been misplaced and in inquiry in this respect is being held. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken a stance that the petitioner is not a signatory of the report which is a fake one. The petitioner is a lady and a government servant having 25 years service record and apparently there is no criminal case against her except the present one. So far as Mst. Samina is concerned she has paid the duty, penalty and even the fine and the container has been released. The clearing agent who submitted documents in her place is still at large. Challan has been submitted in Court. The offence alleged against both the petitioners is punishable at the most with three years R.I. or fine or with both as such does not fall in prohibitory clause of 497 Cr.P.C. So keeping in view that they are ladies and are entitled to certain exceptions. They are no more required for further investigation, sending them behind the bars at this stage would not serve any useful purpose.

8.Consequently, Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4256-B of 2013 and Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4255-B of 2013 are accepted and interim pre-arrest bail already granted to Mst. Farrah Noor and Mst. Samina Naz, petitioners are confirmed subject to each of them furnishing fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.5,00,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. They shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date of hearing.

MWA/F-31/LBail confirmed.