MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.--- Petitioner being accused of a criminal case vide F.I.R. No,C.42 dated 21-12-2006 under section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 4(1) of 1947 registered with Police Station F.I.A./CC, Lahore prayed its quashment on the ground that petitioner is doing business of Export under the title of IFTI Enterprises and is not involved in sale/purchase of foreign currency etc. And that offence charged is not made out from a bare perusal of the F.I.R. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner since sending of decoy witnesses to trap the accused, has been declared un-Islamic by the Honourable Federal Shariat Court, all the proceedings conducted by the police stood vitiated. In support of relief prayed, reliance was placed on the judgments in the cases of Muhammad Ashraf v. Rizwan Nazir, Executive Magistrate 1st Class, Daska and another 2000 PCr.LJ 1324 and Muhammad Saleem v. Deputy Director, F.I.A./C.B.C. Multan and others 2000 M LD 357.
2. Having heard the case and perused the record, it became apparent that stance canvassed in this petition rested on disputed factual controversy, requiring determination through detailed inquiry/recording of evidence but such exercise cannot be undertaken while discharging jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of this country. These canons have already attained finality through consistent judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, right from the case of The Province of East Pakistan v. Kshiti Dhar Roy and others PLD 1964 SC 636 upto date, including the case of Muhammad Younas Khan and 12 others v. Government of N.-W.F.P. Through Secretary Forest and Agriculture, Peshawar and others 1993 SCM R 618 as foreign currency of different denominations of huge value was recovered from the petitioner and he was found dealing with its sale/purchase in violation of section 4 of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1947. He was connected with commission of cognizable offence through incriminating evidence already collected by the prosecution. Section 4 of the Act (ibid) reads as under:-- "4. Restrictions on dealing in Foreign Exchange.--- (i) Except with the previous general or special permission of the State Bank, no person other than an authorized dealer shall in Pakistan, and no person resident in Pakistan other than an authorized dealer shall outside Pakistan buy or borrow from, or sell or lend to, or exchange with any person not being an authorized dealer, any foreign exchange."
3. Petitioner was undisputedly, not a licence holder or authorized dealer to deal with Foreign Exchange in terms of section 3 of the said Act and the complained action was fully covered by its section 23.
4. Petitioner's stance that he was a Foreign Currency Account holder and to keep such currency was not an offence, shall be determined by the trial Court after recording of evidence. On the basis of disputed factual controversy, a lawful registered case cannot be quashed in view of the judgment by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Saleem Bhatti v. Syed Safdar Ali Rizvi and 2 others 2006 SCM R 1957. Judgments relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner proceeded on altogether different facts/circumstances, as in those cases the accused were licence-holders and were dealing in foreign exchange in violation of the Act of 1947 thus, are of no help to the case of the petitioner.
5. For the reasons noted above, no case for issuance of writ prayed, was made out and consequently, this petition being devoid of any merit, is dismissed in limine.