P L D 2008 Lahore 218 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ANSAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | P L D 2008 Lahore 218 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ANSAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2008 Lahore 218 (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 P L D 2008 Lahore 218 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2008 Lahore 218 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ANSAR — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ashfaq Mughal for Petitioner.
- 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that observation of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala is bereft of any merit as the allegations mentioned in the F.I.R. attracts the provisions of sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention and Control of Human Trafficking Ordinance, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Prevention and Control of Human Trafficking Ordinance (LIX of 2002), Ss. 2(h), 3 & 4
Emigration Ordinance (XVIII of 1979), S.22
Application for grant of bail having been dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate, petitioner preferred appeal before appellate Court, which was dismissed with observation that jurisdiction in the matter rested with Special Judge (Central) as S.22 of Emigration Ordinance, 1979 Was squarely attracted in the matter
Essential ingredients for application of S.3 of Prevention and Control of Human Trafficking Ordinance, 2002, .were coercion, kidnapping, abduction etc.
F.I.R. did not indicate any coercion or use of force
Mere promise or taking a person outside Pakistan to provide him employment abroad, would not constitute `human trafficking' within the meaning of S.3 of Prevention and Control of Human Trafficking Ordinance, 2002
Appellate Court had rightly found that matter related to the jurisdiction of Special Judge (Central)
Petition was dismissed, with observation that petitioner, if so advised, could approach Special Judge for the relief sought for.
Judgment & Decree
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, J.
Through this petition, petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.786, dated 7-11-2007, registered under Sections 3/4 HTO 2002 with Police Station F.I.A. Gujranwala.
2. Heard. Record perused.
3. The petitioner filed post arrest bail which came up for hearing before the learned Judicial Magistrate, who dismissed the same on 30-11-2007. He preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, which came up before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, who observed in his order dated 13-1-2007 that jurisdiction in this matter rest with Special Judge (Central) as section 22 of Emigration Ordinance 1979 is squarely attracted.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that observation of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala is bereft of any merit as the allegations mentioned in the F.I.R. attracts the provisions of sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention and Control of Human Trafficking Ordinance, 2002.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. Human Trafficking is defined under Section 2(h) which reads as under:- "(h) "human trafficking" means obtaining, securing, selling, purchasing, recruiting, detaining, harbouring or receiving a person, notwithstanding his implicit or explicit consent by the use of coercion, kidnapping, abduction, or by giving or receiving any payment or benefit, or sharing or receiving a share for such person's subsequent transportation out of or into Pakistan by any means whatsoever for any of the purposes mentioned in section 3:"
7. Bare reading of Section 2(h) manifests coercion, kidnapping abduction, or by giving or receiving any payment, or sharing or receiving a share for such persons subsequent transportation out of Pakistan by any means, whatsoever, for any of the purposes mentioned in Section 3 is sine qua non to attract provision of Section 3 of the Ordinance.
8. Mere promise or taking a person outside Pakistan to provide employment abroad will not constitute "human trafficking" within the meaning of Section 3 of the Ordinance. Essential ingredients for application of Section 3 are coercion, kidnapping, abduction etc. Reading of the F.I.R. does not indicate any coercion or use of force. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, has rightly observed that matter relates to the jurisdiction of the learned Special Judge (Central), calling for no interference.
9. For what has been discussed above, this petition is dismissed in limine. The petitioner, however, if so advised, may approach the learned Special Judge (Central) for the relief sought for. H.B.T./M-619/L Petition dismisse