1987 P Cr (PLP)

Mr. Karamchand, learned counsel appearing for the complainant has contended that since the offence under sections 406, 420 was committed at Shikarpur, therefore, 'the Magistrate had jurisdiction to proceed with the above case. I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel and have also gone through the provisions of law. Admittedly, offence under section 506(2), P.P.C. if any, was committed at Karachi and it was distinct offence, therefore, the Magistrate, Shikarpur had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the same. The schedule attached to Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974, shows that offences under sections 406 and 420 are scheduled offences. In order to appreciate the next contention of Mr. Sharful Islam, it is necessary to have a look at sections 22 and 24 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979. Section 22 reads as under:‑ S.22(l)‑‑ "Whoever, for providing or securing or on the pretext of providing or securing to or for any person employment in any country beyond the limits of Pakistan: (a) being an Overseas Employment promoters, charges any fee in addition to the prescribed amount, or (b) not being such a promoter demands, or receives, or attempts to receive, for himself or for any other person, any money or other valuable thing. shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to fourteen years, or with fine, or with both" Section 24 reads‑as under: 24(1)‑‑ The Federal Government may, by notification in the official Gazette set up as many Special Courts as it considers necessary and, whore it sets up more than one Special Court shall specify in the notification the headquarters of each Special Court and the territorial limits within which it shall exercise jurisdiction under this Ordinance. (2) A Special Court shall consist of a person who is or has been a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898), an offence punishable under the Ordinance shall be tried exclusively by a Special Court." A bare reading of the above provisions of law clearly show that the offences alleged to have been committed by the applicant and co‑accused were punishable under section 22 of Emigration Ordinance, 1979 and the same could only be tried before the Special Court and not before the 1st Class Magistrate. From the above discussion it is clear that cognizance taken by the) A.C.M., Shikarpur in the above case, against‑ the applicant and co‑accused was without lawful authority, and therefore, the proceedings pending against the applicant and co‑accused in case of Abdul. Hakim v. Mukhtar Ahmed and another are hereby quashed. I had decided the above matter on 5‑5‑1987, by short order and these are the reasons for the same. M.Y.H./S‑80/K Proceeding quashed.