1. ' The applicant Abu Bakar has been named as one of the two accused persons in Crime No, 189 of 1988 registered on 31-3-1988 at Police Station Baghdadi, Karachi, South under section 14 of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. By this application filed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. He seeks abashment of that F.I.R.
2. ' The facts as given in the F.I.R. Briefly stated are that one Younus Suleman by his complaint dated 19-3-1988 addressed to the Commissioner, Karachi alleged that he had in the year 1977 gone to Musqat and worked there till 1980 when he proceeded to Sultanate of Oman and started his business as goldsmith in partnership with one Ali Saeed Salamul Razki. In 1983 the complainant managed to procure an employment agreement dated 20-10-1983 for applicant Abu Bakar son of Haji Muhammad Qasim and Sadiq son of Saleh from his said partner. He thereafter made complete arrangements for their passage and visa to Sultanate of Oman. Soon after the applicant Abu Bakar son of Haji Muhammad Qasim reported to his duty, he started remitting various amounts to different persons of his family in Pakistan and in all remitted about Rs,10,00,000 although he had worked for eight months only drawing a salary of Rs,3,600 per month. The applicant Abu Bakar is alleged to have stolen gold from the shop of complainant at Oman and sent it to Karachi. This fact according to allegation has been admitted by his brother Muhammad Ibrahim through his letters. The applicant Abu Bakar after stealing 102 Tolas of gold of the value of Rs,3,00,000 managed to send it to Karachi through one Muhammad Umar. The applicant Abu Bakar then managed to escape from Oman. After the gold was checked at Oman, it transpired that he had stolen 162 Tolas of gold and the complainant was held responsible for such a loss worth about Rs,17,00,000. His shop was sealed by the Government of Oman.
3. ' Sadiq Saleh the other accused person who worked as his driver was also arrested for the theft of the complainant. It has been alleged that both of the accused persons had stolen 102 Tolas of gold and brought it to Karachi through various methods. The complaint was endorsed by the Commissioner, Karachi to the Assistant Commissioner and S.D.M., Karachi who forwarded the same to S.H.O. Of Police Station Baghdadi and it was incorporated in the F.I.R.
4. ' Abu Bakar one of the two accused has filed present application and impleaded the co-accused Sadiq Saleh as respondent No,2 in the application.
5. ' Mr. Mumtaz Hussain Shah, Advocate appearing for the applicant has urged that an officer in charge of police station is competent to investigate a cognizable offence only when it is committed within the local area of his station as provided under section 156(1), Cr.P.C. It is, therefore, that a police station is defined under section 4(1) (s), Cr.P.C. To include a local area that may be specified by the Provincial Government. According to him as the offence took place not only beyond the prescribed limits of Police Station Baghdadi but beyond the territorial limits of Pakistan itself, the Officer Incharge of Baghdadi Police Station is not competent to enquire into the alleged offence. According to him, since the alleged offence has been committed beyond the territorial limits of the concerned police station, the F.I.R. Registered against the applicant Abu Bakar deserves to be quashed, He has relied on a case reported in PLD 1975 Lah.
521. Further as the F.I.R. Has been registered after a delay of 3 to 7 months it deserves to be quashed on that ground as well. He has relied on 1986 P Cr. L J 1089.
6. ' Mr. Laiq Ahmed appearing for the State in reply to arguments mentioned above has merely stated that as the Commissioner, Karachi had endorsed the complaint, it was competently lodged by the officer incharge of the police station therefore, the F.I.R. Does not deserve to be quashed.
7. The application of the Pakistan Penal Code has been extended to offences provided for 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, follows that the penal provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code will be attracted if any citizen of Pakistan commits such offences even beyond the territories of the country. In order to give effect to such a substantive provision of law, provision has also been made in section 188 in the Criminal Procedure Code, which reads as under:- "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 (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 has been committed at any place within (Pakistan) at which he may be found: ' Political Agents to certify fitness of inquiry into charge: ' Provided that (notwithstanding anything in any of the preceding sections of this Chapter) rincharge 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 allegedly to have been committed, certifies that, in his opinion, the charge ought to be inquired into in (Pakistan), and, where there is no Political Agent, the sanction of the (Federal Government) shall be required: ' Provided, also, that any proceedings taken against any person under this section which would be a bar to subsequent proceedings against such person for the same offence if such offence had been committed in (Pakistan) shall be a bar to further proceedings against him under (the Extradition Act, 1972 `XXI of 1972'), in respect of the same offence in any territory beyond the limits of (Pakistan)."
8. 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. It appears that both the learned counsel appearing for the parties in this case omitted to take note of section 4, P.P.C. And section 188, Cr.P.C. According to provision of section 188, Cr.P.C. The accusation cannot be inquired into without the required certificate but the bar does not extend to mere registering the F.I.R. Under section 154, Cr.P.C. And nowhere a condition has been laid to obtain such a certificate before registering a complaint. It, therefore, follows that the required certificate can be obtained after recording the complaint in order to inquire into the charge.
9. ' In view of the above I do not consider this to be a fit case where F.I.R. Relating to the offences in question may be quashed. In order to comply with the provision of law contained in section 188, Cr.P.C. It will be open to the complainant and investigating authorities to obtain such certificate to be able to inquire into the charges and take further action as may be found to be in accordance with law. Investigation will, therefore, be postponed till then. I am indeed fortified in arriving at such a conclusion in view of judgments reported in Ali Bhoy Jivraj v. Emperor AIR 1925 Sind 88 and Jamil Ahmed Qureshi v. S.H.O. And another PLD 1980 Lah.
10. 119.
11. ' In view of the above this application is dismissed with a direction as given above.