PCRLJ 2012

2012 P Cr (PLP)

AZIZUR REHMAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Peshawar
Decided Date
2012-March-16
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2012 P Cr (PLP)
Forum / Court Peshawar
Bench Members N/A
Parties AZIZUR REHMAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 P Cr (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 P Cr (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: N/A.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 P Cr (PLP) (AZIZUR REHMAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Arshad Hussain for Petitioner.
  • 3. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent and falsely implicated in the instant case as according to him the offence charged is not made out because there is no allegation that the petitioner received the alleged amount for sending anybody abroad for employment albeit bank cheques and agreement deeds have been executed in favour of Musa Khan and Naqibullah affectees, which did not reveal the said factum. In the first report, names of the witnesses have not been mentioned and that on the available record there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner has committed the offence for which he has been charged but there are grounds for further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 497(2)

Emigration Ordinance (XVIII of 1979), Ss. 18-B & 22-B

Fraudulently inducing to emigration

Receiving money for providing foreign employment

Bail, grant of

Further inquiry

Accused was alleged to have extorted money from complainants on the pretext to provide them visa and work permit for abroad

Accused, in that respect executed agreement deeds and received Bank cheques for certain amount, but it did not show the factum of sending the said persons abroad or to provide work permit to them

Agreement deeds and bank cheques were available on record, but in order to prove the same, it would require recording of evidence, which was not the job of High Court to enter upon

Available material reflected that it was a case of civil liability, which could be resolved after recording evidence

Even otherwise offences under Ss.18-B & 22-B of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 provided alternate punishment of fine; same did not fall within the prohibitory limb of S.497, Cr.P.C. which made the case of accused as of further inquiry.

Judgment & Decree

WAQAR AHMAD SETH, J.

Petitioner Aziz-ur-Rehman seeks his release on bail in case F.I.R. No.31 dated 8-2-2012 registered under sections 18-B, 22-B, E.O. 1979, 6 Passport Act read with P.C. Act, by Police Station, FIA/AHTC, Peshawar.

2. Briefly, as per prosecution version, the allegation against the petitioner is that he had deceitfully received an amount of Rs.1,35,500 and Rs.11,00,000 from Musa Khan and Naqibullah affectees on the pretext to provide them visa of employment and work permit for Oman and Canada, respectively and even did not return them the money despite the execution of agreement deeds in their favour.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the petitioner is innocent and falsely implicated in the instant case as according to him the offence charged is not made out because there is no allegation that the petitioner received the alleged amount for sending anybody abroad for employment albeit bank cheques and agreement deeds have been executed in favour of Musa Khan and Naqibullah affectees, which did not reveal the said factum. In the first report, names of the witnesses have not been mentioned and that on the available record there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner has committed the offence for which he has been charged but there are grounds for further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioner.

4. On the other hand, learned Deputy Attorney-General while rebutting the arguments from other side contended that the petitioner has allegedly received huge amount from Musa Khan and Naqibullah affectees on the pretext to provide them visa and work permit for Oman and Canada and in this regard executed agreement deeds with them, therefore, at the moment the petitioner is well connected with the crime alleged against him. Arguments heard. Record perused.

5. It is alleged against the petitioner that he had extorted certain amount of money from Musa Khan and Naqibullah on the pretext to provide them visa and work permit for Oman and Canada. In this respect, the petitioner executed agreement deeds and received bank cheques for certain amount but it did not show the factum of sending the said persons to abroad or to provide work permit to one of them. The agreement deeds and bank cheques are available on record but in order to prove the same, it will require recording of evidence, which is not the job of this court to enter upon. The available material reflects that it is a case of civil liability, which can be resolved after recording evidence. Even otherwise, the offences under sections 18 and 22 of the Emigration Ordinance provide alternate punishment of fine, therefore, the same do not fall within the prohibitory limb of section 497, Cr.P.C., which makes the case of petitioner as of further inquiry. This petition was allowed vide short order of even date and above reasons for the same. HBT/286/P Bail granted.