2012 PLP 2511 (YLR)
MAQSUD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2012 PLP 2511 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Shah Jehan Khan Yousafzai, J |
| Parties | MAQSUD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 2511 (YLR)?
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 PLP 2511 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Shah Jehan Khan Yousafzai, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 2511 (YLR) (MAQSUD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Arshad Hussain Yousafzai for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 1st August 2011.
- 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that passport along with visa was entrusted to Arif and not to petitioner but Arif has not been arrayed as accused. The offence carries substantive imprisonment not falling within the restrictive part of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. or with fine or both. Being a petty matter, there is no hope of awarding substantive imprisonment to the petitioner and the petitioner is no more required for investigation and has never been involved in identical case.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 497
Emigration Ordinance (XVIII of 1979), Ss.17/18(a)
Unlawful emigra tion
Fraudulently , inducing to emigra tion
Offence for which accused was charged, carried substantive punishment not falling within the restrictive part of S.497(1), Cr.P.C. or fine
If the Trial Court keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case found accused guilty of the offence, award him punishment in the shape of fine, he could not be compensated for his liberty
Offence against accused, did not fall within the restrictive part of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.; and accused had no criminal history of cases of identical nature and was no more required for investigation
Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Muhammad Iqbal Mohmand, D.A.G., for the State.
Judgment & Decree
SHAH JEHAN, KHAN YOUSAFZAI, J.
The petitioner is facing charge under sections 17/18(a) of Emigration Ordinance, 1979, vide case F.I.R. No.122 of 2011 registered at Police Station FIA/AHTC, Peshawar. The petitioner was refused bail by the Special Judge (Central) Anti-Corruption and Emigration, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar, hence this petition for the said relief.
2. Case of the prosecution is ,that Wazir Gut, the father of, Shahidur Rahman, brought the passport of Shahidur Rahman along with employment visa to Chand Tara Travel Agency and handed over the same to Arif for issuing him travel ticket and protector along with Rs.22,
500. The said Arif handed over the passport and visa along with Rs.7,500 as protector fee to Maqsood Khan agent (the petitioner) but the said protector was subsequently found fake, where after an inquiry was held the allegation of fake protector was verified. The case was registered and the petitioner was taken into custody.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that passport along with visa was entrusted to Arif and not to petitioner but Arif has not been arrayed as accused. The offence carries substantive imprisonment not falling within the restrictive part of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. or with fine or both. Being a petty matter, there is no hope of awarding substantive imprisonment to the petitioner and the petitioner is no more required for investigation and has never been involved in identical case.
4. The learned D.A.G. (Federal) submits that investigation has already been completed and the trial Court could be directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.
5. Without commenting upon the case of prosecution, suffice it to say that the offence, for which the petitioner is charged, carries substantive punishment not falling within the restrictive part of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. or fine. If the trial Court keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case found the petitioner guilty of the offence, award him punishment in the shape of fine, he could not be compensated for his liberty. The offence does not fall within the restrictive part of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. and the petitioner has got no criminal history of identical nature cases and petitioner is no more required for investigation. I, therefore, admit the petitioner to be released on bail provided he furnishes bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Special Judge Emigration. HBT/284/P Bail granted.