SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, J.- Through this petition the petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in case F.I.R. No. 38. Dated 19 4.2004 registered under Section 17/22 of Emigration Ordinance, 1979 at Police Station FIA, Faisalabad.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner runs grocery shop in a small village and does not possess influence and means to secure huge amount on the pretext to send them abroad for employment No date, time and place has been mentioned in the F.I.R He further contends that offence provides alternate sentence of fine, hence the case falls outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C., thus the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail.
Reliance was placed on the cases of Muhammad Ramzan Vs. The State (2004 P.Cr.L.J. 1813), Shakil Hassan Rashidi Vs. The State (1992 M LD 99) and Muhammad Mustaqeem Vs. State (2004 YLR 68).
3. On the other hand, learned standing counsel in opposition argued that the petitioner deprived the complainant from an amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- on the pretext of sending his son Shahid Mahmood and brother's son Nasir Mahmood to Malaysia for employment. The offence falls within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C., hence the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. The petitioner has allegedly deprived the complainant from an amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- on the pretext of sending his son and brother's son abroad for employment. Inquiry was conducted. The petitioner was found guilty. The prosecution witnesses support, the version of the complainant.
Reliance placed by the leamed counsel for the petitioner on the cases mentioned above are distinguishable. Detail of payment, place and time is not required to be pleaded in the F.I.R. The F.I.R, is a gist of an inquiry conducted by the FIA authority. The prosecution witnesses fully support the prosecution case, which will be further examined at the trial.
6. As to the contention of the learned counsel that alternate punishment of fine is provided under Section 22, Emigration Ordinance, 1979, hence the case of the petitioner falls outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Cr.P.C., on the strength of cases of Shakil Hassan Rashdi and Muhammad Mustaqeem (supra) has not much force in it. I have not been able to subscribe to the view taken in the above judgments and follow the contra decision recorded in the case of Hafiz Ahmad Khan Vs. The State (1988 P.Cr.L.J. 338 Lah.) and in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 886-CB-2005.
7. For what has been discussed above, this petition having no merit is dismissed.