SHAH JEHAN KHAN YOUSAFZAI, J.---This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 8-1-2010 passed by Special Judge (Central) Anti-Corruption and Emigration, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar in case No. 48/2008 whereby the appellant was found guilty under section 22(b) of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 vide F.I.R. No.106 dated 26-5-2007 registered at police station F.I.A. AHTC, Peshawar.
2. Facts in brief are that Alam Naz complainant submitted a written complaint on 3-6-2006 Exh.P.W.1/2 to the Deputy Director Passport Circle, Peshawar stating therein that Liaqat Ali appellant was running an Agency in Bilal Plaza, Takht Bhai District Mardan and has established the business of sending people abroad while he does not possess the requisite licence for the said business. He received an amount of Rs.1,17,000 from the complainant on the commitment of sending him to Malaysia but he failed to provide valid documents. The convict-appellant also executed an agreement dated 7-3-2008 committing himself for sending the complainant to Malaysia otherwise he shall pay double amount till 22-5-2006. The complainant allegedly by selling valuable house hold articles arranged for payment to the appellant for sending him abroad. He demanded Rs.2,34,000 as per terms of agreement but refused. An enquiry by F.I.A. Authorities was conducted under sections 17,18(b) and 22(b) of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 holding the appellant reasonably connected with the commission of offence under the aforesaid provision of law.
Challan was submitted under section 173, Cr.P.C. The Special Judge (Central) Anti- Corruption and Emigration N.-W.F.P., Peshawar sent a letter to the Federal Government for the requisite sanction on 7-5-2008. No reply whatsoever was received by the Court and the appellant was proceeded in accordance with law in view of the proviso attached to section 24(6) of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979. The prosecution has produced six witnesses and closed the prosecution evidence on 27-1- 2009. Statement of convict-appellant was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. Wherein he denied the charges against him but opted not to give a statement on oath or to produce evidence in defence. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Special Judge (Central) Anti-Corruption and Emigration N.-W.F.P., Peshawar vide impugned judgment and order dated 8-1-2010 convicted and sentenced the appellant under section 22(b) of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 to three years' R.I. With a fine of Rs.3,00,000 or in default to undergo one year S.I. On realization of the fine, Rs. 2,00,000 were to be paid to the complainant. The charges under sections 17 and 18(b) of the Ordinance (ibid) were dropped. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. Was extended to the appellant and the accused who was on bail was taken into custody to undergo the substantiate imprisonment.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, who contended that without obtaining sanction from the Federal Government, the entire proceeding in the Court 'of Special Judge (Central) Anti-Corruption and Emigration N.-W.F.P., Peshawar is ultra vires. Also contended that the appellant is neither an overseas employment promoter nor has any connection with the Nidal, overseas employment promoter authorized agency cannot be proceeded against under the Ordinance (ibid). Also contended that the prosecution witnesses are self-contradicted on material aspect of prosecution case and they being interested witnesses being related to the complainant party cannot be relied upon without corroboration. The learned State counsel refuted the aforesaid contentions and submitted that appellant was tried for the alleged offence as no sanction was obtained before submission of challan, a letter was sent under section 24(6) of the Ordinance
(ibid) which was not replied and under the proviso attached to the aforesaid provision of law, the trial Court commenced the trial wherein appellant was found guilty and convicted and sentenced as noted in the impugned judgment. Further submitted that prosecution witnesses were not inimical towards the appellant and they have supported the case of prosecution on all material aspects. Minor contradictions in their statement are of no use for the appellant. The appellant though not an authorized promoter but by deceitful means he had opened an office in main Bazar posing himself to be an authorized promoter or genuine agent, could be proceeded under the Ordinance (ibid).
4. Alam Naz, complainant was examined as P.W.1 who has elaborately stated the same facts which were recorded in the complaint. He has paid Rs. 20,000 and Rs. 97,000 total amounting to Rs.1,17,000 for providing him visa for Malaysia. In his statement he has given elaborate story that how he was kept under impression through deceitful means for a long span of time and even he was deceived by giving him fictitious letters which were found not a valid visa for Malaysia. He was also deceived by saying that through the said letters he would be paid Rs.750 Malaysian Ranget while in those letters he was shown a salary of Rs.181 Malaysian Ranget. The witness was subjected to lengthy cross-examination but his deposition could not be shattered on any material point. The prosecution has also produced Muhammad Kamal P.W.2 and Yousaf Ali P.W.3 who corroborated the statement of complainant. They are also witnesses of affidavit of appellant Exh.P.W.1/3 and agreement executed Exh.P.W.3/1. The deposition could not be shattered during cross- examination.
Sadarullah Babar Sub-Inspector F.I.A. Headquarter, Islamabad was examined as P.W.4, who brought on record Exh.P.W.4/1 copy of F.I.R. Wherein the complaint Exh.P.W.1/2 was duly incorporated. He conducted preliminary investigation in the case in view of the sufficient evidence.
He recommended for registration of the case. P.W.5 Assistant Director F.I.A. Emigration confirmed the submission of complaint by P.W.1 under section 24(6) of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979. Gul Rehman P.W.6 has conducted investigation in the case. Since no sanction was received at the time of submission of challan, the trial Court sent a letter Exh.P.W.5/1 under section 24(6) of the Ordinance (ibid). The appellant has denied all the charges against him in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. And deposed that the prosecution witnesses are interested and expressed his denial to give statement on oath or to produce evidence in his defence.
5. The contention regarding want of requisite sanction, subsection (6) along with proviso of section 24 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 is reproduced below:-- "A Special Court shall take cognizance of, and have jurisdiction to try, an offence punishable under this Ordinance only upon a complaint in writing which is accompanied by the .Previous sanction of the Federal Government: Provided that, in a case in which the complaint is not accompanied by such sanction the Special Court shall, immediately on its receipt, refer the latter to the Federal Government; and, if the required sanction is neither received nor refused within sixty days of the receipt of the reference by the Federal Government, such sanction shall be deemed to have been duly accorded."
6. The order sheet reveals that for requisite sanction, a letter Exh.P.W.5/1 was sent to Federal Government and despite lapse of sixty days, no sanction or refusal was communicated and under the aforesaid proviso sanction shall be deemed to have been accorded.
7. The contention regarding interested witnesses which was held in 2003 YLR 3019 that mere relationship of witnesses inter se is no reason to discard their evidence. There was no previous background of enmity between the parties and even there was no question of false implication and the prosecution witnesses were relied upon for recording conviction and sentence. In the present case, the prosecution has fully established that appellant had an office at Takht Bhai for sending the people abroad. The complainant along with other approached him and he received Rs.20,000 from each of them in the first instance and thereafter on demand of the remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000 agreement Exh.P.W.3/1 was executed which was corroborated by Notary Public duly signed by the parties with marginal witnesses and the appellant committed himself for double payment of the received amount in case of failure to provide him visa for Malaysia. There is no suggestion put to any of the witness that the appellant was charged malafidely or due to any motive.
8. In view of the above, I found no merit in this criminal appeal which is hereby dismissed.