The Falcons Felony

An anti-terrorism court acquits customs officials accused by a falcons trader of robbery and breach of privacy

Karachi: An Anti-Terrorism Court in Karachi has acquitted three customs officers of terrorism charges brought against them by a purported trader of falcons who alleged that the accused raided his house in Defence Housing Authority (DHA), and robbed him of a number of valuables including 25 legally kept falcons, gold jewelry, cash and cell phones.

The raid, which was conducted in October 2020, led to the recovery of 74 falcons from the complainant’s house. It made headlines in the international media which described it as the biggest-ever action against smuggling of falcons to the Middle East where they would be trained for hunting houbara bustards.

A case of smuggling was registered against the owner of the raided house, Basheer Ahmad, and some other suspects. But they were acquitted by the Customs Court, Karachi. After their acquittal, Basheer Ahmad moved a private complaint at an anti-terrorism court (ATC) in Karachi, accusing the raiding officials of robbery.

In the complaint he stated that he was involved in the business of falcon trade and held a valid license for it. He alleged that customs officials, namely Samiullah Khan Niazi (Deputy Collector Customs), Rana Azeem Sarwar and Malik Iftikhar, as well as four unknown persons, armed with lethal weapons, trespassed into his house during the night between 14-15 October, 2020.

As stated by the complainant, the accused, who entered his house by climbing the walls, misbehaved with him and other inmates. They posed as officials of government agencies, had guns in their hands, and robbed him of valuables including gold ornaments, five mobile phones, 500,000 rupees as well as 25 falcons.

He said in his complaint that he tried to show the raiders his license for retaining the birds, but they tore it up, and demanded 10 million rupees in bribes if he wanted to continue with his falcon business.

He said he tried his level best to get his falcons back, but the raiding team lodged a First Information Report (FIR) against him for trading in falcons illegally. However, the FIR was later declared by a court to be without jurisdiction, and the complainant’s ‘private complaint’ was converted into a special case of extortion, which was triable by the ATC and carried a death penalty.

However, after examination-in-chief and cross-examination of the complainant and his witnesses, statements of the accused and arguments put forth by the two parties, the ATC trial judge has found the story of the complainant to be doubtful.

In his ruling the judge declared that neither the complainant nor his witnesses have in their depositions specified the type of jewelry and the denomination of currency notes stolen from the house. They have also failed to specify the details of five robbed mobile phones, and the sims they carried. The complainant has not stated as to whether he got those mobile phones and their sim cards blocked by their respective companies, it said.

As regards the validity of the license of the complainant to retain the birds, it is still pending adjudication by the Sindh High Court, the ruling said.

As for the accused, who are government employees, the court held that they have established that a notice under Section-163 of the Customs Act 1969 was served on the complainant, and was received by one Sanwal, a nephew of the complainant. Saifullah Niazi, who served the notice, turned back from the gate of the house to supervise a raid his customs team was conducting in the area, it noted.

As against this, the complainant failed to establish without reasonable doubt that the accused, Saifullah Niazi and Rana Azeem, had indeed forced their way into his house, the court stated.

The court further held that the complainant had purposefully not included Sanwal, the receiver of the customs notice, in the list of his witnesses, which it said made the complainant’s case doubtful.

Citing various judgments of superior courts, the judge held that the burden of proof is always upon the prosecution, and that the defense is not duty-bound to disprove the case of the prosecution. Also, the benefit of doubt is always given to the accused, as per the established principle of the law, he said.