Conviction Under Section 22(b) of Emigration Ordinance 1979

 PLJ 2021 Cr.C. (Note) 31

[Lahore High Court, Multan Bench]

Present: Tariq Saleem Sheikh, J.

ABBAS ALI--Appellant

versus

STATE and another--Respondents

Crl. A. No. 646 of 2018, decided on 15.11.2018.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--

----S. 426--Emigration Ordinance, 1979, S. 22(b)--Suspension of sentence--Application of--Conviction and sentence u/S. 22(b) of Emigration Ordinance, 1979--Sentence awarded to petitioner is indeed short--There is no prospect of early fixation of main appeal of the petitioner which relates to year 2018--In case his sentence is not suspended there is a possibility that he may serve out his entire sentence before his appeal is decided--According to report dated 14.11.2018 submitted by Superintendent, District Jail, Multan, he is incarcerated since date of his arrest and has already served out imprisonment of two years--He cannot be kept behind bars for an indefinite period as it would amount to punishment in advance--Application was accepted. [Para 3] A

Prince Rehan Iftikhar, Advocate, for Petitioner.

Mr. Ansar Yasin, Deputy Prosecutor General for State.

Ch. Inamullah, Advocate, for the Complainant.

Date of hearing: 15.11.2018.

Order

Crl. Misc.No. 1/2018

Petitioner Abbas Ali was tried by the learned Special Judge (Central), Multan, in case FIR No. 349/2016 dated 5.9.2016 registered at Police Station FIA/CC, Multan. Through the impugned judgment dated 9.7.2017 he was convicted under Section 22(b) of the Emigration Ordinance. 1979 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month. Benefit of Section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was extended to him. The Petitioner has filed the above-noted appeal against the judgment of the learned trial Court dated 9.7.2017 which is still pending. Through the instant application he seeks suspension of his sentence.

2. Arguments heard. Record perused.

3. The sentence awarded to the petitioner is indeed short. There is no prospect of early fixation of the main appeal of the Petitioner which relates to the year 2018. In case his sentence is not suspended there is a possibility that he may serve out his entire sentence before his appeal is decided. According to the report dated 14.11.2018 submitted by Superintendent, District Jail, Multan, he is incarcerated since the date of his arrest and has already served out imprisonment of two years. He cannot be kept behind the bars for an indefinite period as it would amount to punishment in advance. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Abdul Hameed v. Muhammad Abdullah and others (1999 SCMR 2589), this application is accepted. The sentence of the Petitioner is suspended and he is released on bail subject to his furnishing baill bond in the sum of Rs. 100,000/- (Rupees one hundred thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (Judl.) of this Bench. The Petitioner is, however, directed to attend this Court on each and every date of hearing till the final decision of his appeal.

(A.A.K.)          Application accepted

Bail Granted on 8 days delay in FIR

PLJ 2015 Cr.C. (Lahore) 244

Present: James Joseph, J.

MUHAMMAD IMRAN, etc.--Petitioners

versus

STATE, etc.--Respondents

Crl. Misc. No. 11237-B of 2014, decided on 19.9.2014.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--

----S. 497(2)--Pakistan Penal Code, (XLV of 1860), Ss. 381-A & 411--Bail, grant of--Further inquiry--There was a delay of eight days in lodging of FIR which has not been explained--Allegedly petitioners were not nominated in FIR nor there was any direct evidence against them--They were involved in the present case on the basis of supplementary statement made by complainant--Evidentiary value of such kind of supplementary statement shall be adjudged by trial Court after recording of evidence--A joint recovery of stolen property has been shown to be effected on pointation of petitioners and co-accused--Co-accused has already been released on bail by Court of Additional Sessions Judge--Same has not been assailed by complainant at any forum--Offences with which petitioners were charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C., grant of bail in such kind of cases is a rule and its refusal is an exception--Investigation qua petitioners was complete and challan has been submitted before trial Court where trial has not been commenced so-far--They were stated to be non convicts and no useful purpose would be served by keeping them behind bars for an indefinite period--Matter required further inquiry into guilt of petitioners as contemplated u/S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.--Petition was allowed.                                 [P. 245] A

Mr. A.D. Bhatti, Advocate for Petitioners.

Rana Muhammad Shafique, DPG assisted by Rai Muhammad Shahbaz Bhatti, Advocate for Complainant.

Date of hearing: 19.9.2014.

Order

Muhammad Imran and Muhammad Asif petitioners seek post-arrest bail in case FIR No. 114/2014 dated 17.5.2014 for offences under Sections 381-A/411 PPC registered at P.S. sadder Kamalia District Toba TekSingh.

2.  Briefly the prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR is that the complainant on the intervening night between 08/09-05-2014 parked his tractor on the farm of Malik Sarif and when he woke up in the morning, he found his tractor missing.

3.  I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4.  There is a delay of eight (08) days in lodging of the FIR which has not been explained. Allegedly the petitioners are not nominated in the FIR nor there is any direct evidence against them. They were involved in the present case on the basis of supplementary statement made by the complainant on 27.05.2014. The evidentiary value of such kind of supplementary statement shall be adjudged by the learned trial Court after recording of evidence. A joint recovery of stolen property has been shown to be effected on the pointation of petitioners and one Anser Abbas. Co-accused Anser Abbas has already been released on bail by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge Kamalia vide order dated 05.07.2014. The same has not been assailed by the complainant at any forum. The offences with which the petitioners are charged do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C. grant of bail in such kind of cases is a rule and its refusal is an exception. Investigation qua the petitioners is complete and challan has been submitted before the trial Court where the trial has not been commenced so-far. They are stated to be non convicts and no useful purpose would be served by keeping them behind the bars for an indefinite period.

5.  In view of the above, the matter requires further inquiry into the guilt of the petitioners as contemplated under Section 497 (2), Cr.P.C. Resultantly this petition is allowed and the petitioners are

admitted to post-arrest bail subject to their furnishing ball bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees on lac only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The observations made above are tentative in nature.

(A.S.)  Bail allowed