' MUHAMMAD HASHIM KHAN KAKAR, J.---Through this petition under section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code 1898 (Cr.P.C.), the petitioner i,e, Abdul Qadir Shah has called in question the order dated 18th October 2012 (the "impugned order"), passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III/Justice of the Peace, Quetta (the "trial Court"), whereby an application under section 22- A of the Cr.P.C. Filed by the respondent No,1 was allowed and Station House Officer (S.H.O.) of Kuchlak Police Station was directed to register F.I.R. Against the petitioner and his alleged companions.
2. Necessary facts for disposal of instant petition are that respondent No,1, namely, Muhammad Qasim son of Abdul Khaliq filed an application under section 22-A of the Cr.P.C. Before the learned Sessions Judge, Quetta, which was entrusted to the learned trial Court, stating therein that his brother; viz, Muhammad Ismail, a motor mechanic by profession, was contacted by the proposed accused i,e, petitioner Abdul Qadir Shah, Sultan Shah, sons of Haji Agha, Dadullah and Kaleemullah, residents of Mitha Chowk, Pashtoon Abad, Quetta, and they made an offer to him to run a garage at Chaman on partnership basis, which was accepted and, accordingly, Muhammad Ismail accompanied them to Chaman. On 7th August 2012, they received the dead body of Muhammad Ismail at Kuchlak sent by the proposed accused persons, whose medical examination was conducted and according to the medical report, it transpired that the deceased was done to death by means of causing injuries with knives and screwdrivers. According to the complainant that they made an attempt to contact the accused persons, however, since then they disappeared.
3. Mr. Abdul Khair Achakzai, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that an officer-in- charge/S.H.O. Of a police station is competent to investigate a cognizable offence only when it is committed within the jurisdiction of the said police station, as provided under section 156(1) of the Cr.P.C. According to him, as the alleged offence took place not only beyond the prescribed jurisdiction of Kuchlak Police Station, Quetta, but also beyond the territorial limits of the Pakistan itself. Officer-in-charge of Kuchlak Police Station, Quetta was not competent to inquire into the alleged offence, and F.I.R., ordered to be registered against the petitioner, deserves to be quashed.
He further submitted that during the course of initial investigation conducted by the police authorities of Kuchlak Police Station transpired that the deceased was done to death by unknown culprits at Waish", a border area, which is Afghan territory. While concluding his arguments, he also drew my attention to the provisions of section 188 of the Cr.P.C. And contended that a citizen of Pakistan is liable to stand trial in Pakistan in respect of an offence, which he may have committed beyond the limits of Pakistan, as if it had been committed at any place in Pakistan. He, however, contended that the first proviso to section 188 of the Cr.P.C. Limits the operation of the substantive clause by providing that no charge as to any such offence shall be "inquired into" in Pakistan, unless the Political Agent, if there is one, for the territory in which the offence is alleged to have been committed, certifies that, in his opinion, the charge, ought to be inquired into in Pakistan.
However, in respect of a place, when there is no political agent, the sanction of the Federal Government shall be necessary. Thus, on this score also, the F.I.R. Deserves to be quashed.
3. Miss. Sarwat Hina, learned Additional Prosecutor General, while defending the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court, submitted that the impugned order is unexceptionable and further urged that the expression "no charge as to any such offence shall be inquired into" does not place any embargo on lodging of F.I.R. Or investigation by the police.
4. Before entering into the controversy, a reference to the relevant provisions' i,e, sections 3 and 4 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (P.P.C.) and section 188 of the Cr.P.C. Would be in order, These provisions read as follows:-- "3. Punishment of offences committed beyond, but which by law may be tried within Pakistan.-- -Any person liable, by any Pakistan Law, to be tried for an offence committed beyond Pakistan shall be dealt with according to the provisions of this Code for any act committed beyond Pakistan in the same manner as if such act had been committed within Pakistan.
4. Extension of Code to extra-territorial offences.---The provisions of this Code apply also to any offence committed by: [(1) any citizen of Pakistan or any person in the service of Pakistan in any place without and beyond Pakistan] ;
(2) Omitted by A.O.
1961.
(3) Omitted by Ord: XXVII of 1981 Second Sch. Item 4.
(4) any person on any ship or aircraft registered in Pakistan wherever it may be.
' Explanation. In this section the word "offence includes every act committed outside Pakistan which, if committed in Pakistan, would be punishable under this Code."
"188. Liability for offences committed outside Pakistan. When a citizen of Pakistan commits an offence at any place without and beyond the limits of Pakistan, or ' when a servant of the State (whether a citizen of Pakistan or not) commits an offence in [a tribal area,] or ' when any person commits an offence on any ship or aircraft registered in Pakistan wherever it may be, ' he may be dealt with in respect of such offence as if it had been committed at any, place within Pakistan at which he may be found "
5. Accumulative reading of sections 3 and 4 of the P.P.C. As well as section 188 of the Cr.P.C., shows that these provisions confer extraterritorial jurisdiction on the criminal Courts in Pakistan over Pakistani citizens in respect of acts committed by them outside Pakistan. The application of Pakistan Penal Code has been extended to offences provided therein when committed by a citizen of Pakistan even in any country other than Pakistan itself by the provision made in section 4 of that Code. It, therefore, focuses that the Penal provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code will be attracted if any citizen of Pakistan commits suo offences even beyond the territories of the country.
6. Similarly, in section 188 of the Cr.P.C., it is provided that when a citizen of Pakistan commits an offence at any place without and beyond the limits of Pakistan, he may be dealt with in respect of such offence as if it had been committed at any place within Pakistan at which he may be found.
The first proviso to this Section prohibits the conduct of an inquiry into such offences unless it is certified by the Political Agent of Pakistan in that country where offence has been committed that in his opinion the charges are to be inquired into in Pakistan. In case where there is no Political Agent, sanction of the Federal Government will be necessary. The said provisions of law clearly demonstrate that the accusation cannot be inquired into without the required certificate, but the bar does not extend to mere registration the F.I.R. Under section 154 of the Cr.P.C. And nowhere a condition has been laid to obtain such a certificate before registration of F.I.R. Admittedly, the sanction under section 188 of the Cr.P.C. Is a procedural requirement and can be produced even after submission of challan in a Court of competent jurisdiction. It, therefore, follows that the required sanction can be secured even after submission of challan in order to inquire into the charge.
7. Reverting to the next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that neither the learned trial Court, nor S.H.O. Of Kuchlak Police Station were authorized to inquire into the matter, as the exact place of occurrence is unknown. The said contention has no legs to stand on, as the provisions of sections 179 and 182 of the Cr.P.C. Furnish a complete answer, which read as follows: "179. Accused triable in district where act is done or where consequence ensues. When a person is accused of the commission of any offence by reason of anything which had been done, and of any consequence which has ensued, such offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within the limits of whose jurisdiction any such thing has been done or any such consequence has ensued."
182. Place of inquiry or trial where scene of offence is uncertain or not in one district only or where offence is continuing or consists of several acts. When it is uncertain in which or several local areas an offence was committed, or ' where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or ' where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than, one, or ' where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, ' it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas."
8. Accumulative study of both the aforesaid provisions of law would show that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is unexceptionable. It is an admitted feature of the case in hand that the deceased was lastly seen in the company of proposed accused persons, when he accompanied them and proceeded to Chaman for running a garage and, subsequently, his dead body was found at Kuchlak, thus, the venue of inquiry or trial of such a case is primarily to be determined by the averments made in the complaint or charge sheet and unless the facts mentioned therein are positively disproved. Ordinarily the Court, where the charge sheet or complaint is filed, is to proceed with it. Needless to observe here that, it is a blind murder case and all the queries would be answered after having a full-fledge investigation made by police. Similarly, it may be relevant to mention here that the learned counsel for the petitioner, during course of the arguments, made an attempt to place on record certain documents, purported to have been issued by the Administration of Spin Boldak, Afghanistan, however, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the same have no weight or relevancy, for the reason that both the parties are, reportedly, Pakistani National and residents of district Quetta. Thus, the learned trial Court and police authorities of Kuchlak Police Station have the authority to inquire into the matter. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
' These are the reasons of my short order dated 19th August 2013, announced in the open Court.