1. {{PAGE IS MISSING}} TRIAL (ABROAD EMPLOYMENT FRAUD) - (Non-production of relevant documents)Emigration Ordinance (1979)----Ss. 24-A, 18/22-Abroad employment fraud-Allegation was that appellant had received amount in question for sending the affectees abroad against a valid Visa for . Employment but thereafter neither the returned money nor honoured commitment- Denial-Impugnedconviction/sentence-Non-production of related documents-- -Appreciation of evidence-Validity-Passports containing alleged forged visas were never produced in the Court to establish the offence in question-I.O. During investigation did not take any material in possession to establish said offences--In absence of any passport, visa or related documents, it could not te concluded that prosecution established any case for offence alleged-As far as discredit of cheques was concerned, that Was a separate offence for which F.I.A, had , got no jurisdiction- Impugnedconviction/sentence was set aside by High Court-Criminal appeal allowed. (Paras 12,13,14)[Passports containing alleged forged visas were never produced in Court, therefore, offence under Sections 18/12, Emigration Ordinance, 1979 was not established. Impugned conviction/sentence was set aside].For the Appellant: Syed Abaid Ullah Shah, Advocate.For the State: Raja Shakeel Ahmed Abbasi, Standing Counsel.Date of hearing: 12th November, 2012.JUDGMENTMUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN KASI, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22.10.2009,parsed by learned Special Judge Central, Rawalpindi, whereby the appellant was found guiIty under Sections 18 & 22, of Emigration Ordinance, 1979 and sentenced as under:-Under Section 18: Sentenced to R1, for 12 yearswith fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-A in default to pay the amount of fine, the appellant will have to undergo5.1. For 2 yeans.Under Section 22: Sentenced to R.I. For 12 yearswith fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-, in default to pay the amount of fine, the appellant will have to undergo5.1. For2years.The sentences were directed to run concurrently with benefit of Section 382- B, Cr.P.C.2. The appeal is agitated on the ground that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate law and facts of the case, while the appellant had never made any commitment with any bogy nor had received any amount for sending the complainant abroad. .3. It is further submitted that the appellant had issued four biank cheques to the complainant as guarantee only due to business as the complainant had invested Rs. 4,50,000/- with him.4. It is stated that the provisions of Sections 18 & 22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 are not attracted in the present case, the F.I.R, was lodged with an unexplained delay of two years, while the date, time and place for.Giving the money is not mentioned in the F.I.R., there are material contradictions in the statements of PWs, and the prosecution miserably failed to establish any case against the appellant. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relied upon the case-laws cited as 1986 MLD 2719 Lahore, 1984 P.Cr.L.J.
2. 283 Lahore, 2009 YLR 2390 Lahore, 19942013 Muhammad Musa Khan Afiridi V. The State Cr.C.
3. 157(Muhammad Anwar Khan Kasi, /./P.Cr.L.J. 2451 Lahore, 1985 P.Cr.L.J. 2982 Lahore and PLD 2004 Lahore 767.5. Learned Standing Counsel opposed the appeal -on the ground that discredit of cheques issued by the appellant is sufficient proof to establish the guiIt of7 the appellant/convict.6.
4. It is next submitted that neither the appellant recorded his statement under Section 340(2), Cr.P.C, nor produced any defence evidence, Which means that he had no defence.7. Heard and record perused.8. The prosecution story as mentioned in the.I.R. Exh.PD.1 is that the. Appellant had received Rs.13,0, 000/- from complainant Ch. Muhammad Ilyas and his nephew Mr. Sajjad Abid in 2005 with the commitment to send them to England against a valid visa for employment but thereafter neither he returned the money nor honoured the commitment.
9. Perusal of impugned judgment reveals that the Cheques Exh.PA, Exh.PB and Exh.PC, bank slips Exh.PA.1. Exh.PB.1 and Exh.PC,1 regarding dishonouring of said cheques were properly exhibited during the trial through PW.1 and during the cross-examination the issuance of one cheque was not disputed. Again the PW.2 Mr. Sajjad Abid, nephew of the complainant reiterated the fact regarding issuance of cheques, but statement of, PW on this point was not shakdrT&nd the only plea of defence was that he had not received any money from the complainant for sending them abroad.10. The I.O. Of the case PW.4 got exhibited the application Exh.PD and F.I.R. Exh.PD.1 and stated that the appellant was in custody in another case and was called to join the present investigation.11. The accused during examination under Section 342, Cr.P.C, denied all the allegations and stated that hehad been falsely roped 1h the case. He had neifhOrmade any commitment with anybody nor received any alleged amount, while he had received Rs, 4,50,000/-ias investment for his buinpss at.Phine and for the return of said amount alongwith Qpmrnission he had issued two. Cheques^yayng Rs. 8,50,000/- but he could not arrange the amount, which resulted in the discredit of cheques. *12. ' -The PWs 1 & 2 had alleged that the appellant had received their passport and had returned- them after affixation of Englandvisa, which wasfoundto be bogus, But the passports containing alleged forged visas were never produced in the Court, to establish the offence under Section 18 & 22 of Emigration Ordinance, 1979. The I.O. During the investigation didi'not'' take any material in possession toestablish the said offences. ' -v a. ^13:? ; The appellant admits the receipt of.Amount RS;i^ 4,50,000/- and issuance of cheques valuing Rs. 8,50,000/-, but denies the allegations of any commitment/inducement to send the complainants abroad... In the absence of any passport, visa or related documents, it cannot be concluded that the prosecution established any base for the offences under Emigration Ordinance, 1979. As far as the discredit of cheques is concerned, that is a separate offence for which FIA has got no jurisdiction.14. In view of the above, the conviction recorded through judgment dated 22.10.2009 by learned Special Judge Central, Rawalpindi, is set aside and the appeal is allowed. Consequently the appellant is acquitted of. The charges under Sections 18 & 22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 in connection with F.I.R. Exh.PD/1. The appellant present on bail is discharged of his bail bonds.Criminal appeal allowed.