' SH. RIAZ AHMAD, C.J.---The petitioner was tried by the learned Special Judge (Central), Lahore for the commission of offence under section 22(b) of the Immigration Ordinance, 1979, and at the conclusion of the trial was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. For three years and to pay fine of Rs, Five lacs, or in default thereof, to suffer further six months' R.I.
2. The prosecution case in brief is that the petitioner had received a sum of Rs,4,96,000 alongwith five Passports and the Identity Cards for sending complainant Abdul Aziz and Abdul Majeed abroad in connection with their employment. On petitioner's failure to do so, the complainant reported to the Investigating Agency vide complaint Exh.P.A. Thematter was thoroughly inquired into and ultimately the petitioner was sent up to face his trial before the trial Court. The prosecution in order to substantiate its case at the trial produced ten witnesses in all. Statement of the petitioner was also recorded under section 342, Criminal Procedure Code wherein it was stated that civil litigation was pending between him and the complainant and for that reason petitioner had been falsely involved in this case. Petitioner assailed his conviction before the High Court and on dismissal of his appeal this petition for leave to appeal has been filed by the petitioner.
Meanwhile, the petitioner has served out his sentence.
3. Mr. Muhammad Sharif Chohan, Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner drew our attention .To the afore-referred petitioner's statement and contends that he had highlighted his animosity with the complainant which aspect of the matter was not considered by the Courts below.
4. We are afraid we cannot go into this question at this stage, because the plea of animosity was not substantiated at the trial. Nothing was brought on the record to show that the witnesses appearing against the petitioner had the motive to falsely implicate him in the present case. In this view of the matter, the contention raised by the learned counsel is devoid of any force. The judgment impugned hardly discloses any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court, therefore, this petition is dismissed and leave to appeal declined accordingly.