Noman Ahmed vs State S — 2026 PCrLJ 61 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Noman Ahmed VS State S. 23(3)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 109---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 561-A & 265-K--- Violation of foreign exchange restrictions, abetment---Acquittal of accused---Scope---Application of the petitioner/accused for his acquittal from the case was dismissed by the Trial Court---Validity---From bare perusal of second proviso to S.23(3) of the Act, 1947, it was crystal clear that requirement of filing a complaint in writing by a person authorized by the Central Government or the State Bank was only in respect of alleged commission of offences by those persons who were duly authorized under S. 3, 3A or 3AA of the Act, 1947---However, if a person was not authorized under said provisions of law, then there shall be no need of filing any such complaint---No material had been produced by or on behalf of the applicant to establish that he had been authorized by the State Bank to deal in foreign exchange, foreign currency notes or foreign coins, postal notes, money orders, bank drafts, travelers' cheques and transfers, as provided in the said provisions of law---From the language of second proviso it was quite apparent that requirement of filing a complaint in writing by a person authorized by the Central Government or the State Bank had been exempted in respect of those persons who were not authorized under Ss. 3, 3A or 3AA to deal in foreign exchange, foreign currency notes or foreign coins, postal notes, money orders, bank drafts, travelers' cheques and transfers---In this view of the matter, legal objection raised on behalf of the accused/applicant was not sustainable and it could safely be held that the Trial Court/Tribunal was fully competent to proceed with the case of the applicant---It was alleged by the applicant that FIA officials conducted raid without obtaining search warrant from the concerned Magistrate and there were also other violations of the provisions of S. 19(3) of the Act---Suffice to observe that the fact as to whether any search warrant was obtained by the FIA officials or not from the concerned Magistrate could be determined only after recording of evidence and without undertaking such exercise, it would be premature to adjudge this fact---In case the applicant's plea was that he was innocent and had been involved in the case falsely and/or with mala fide intention, he would be afforded sufficient opportunity to prove his innocence during trial of the case---Besides, other remedies admissible under the law would also be available to applicant for initiating appropriate proceedings against the complainant and also for awarding compensation to him, if ultimately it was found and concluded that the complaint was frivolous and vexatious and had been filed with ulterior motives only to victimize the applicant---Criminal Misc. Application having no merits was dismissed, in circumstances.

Noman Ahmed vs State S — 2026 PCrLJ 61 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PCRLJ