Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
1989 P Cr. L J 480

SIRAJUL HAQ vs THE STATE

Citation1989 P Cr. L J 480
CourtSindh High Court
Case No.Criminal Miscellaneous No, 62 of 1988
Date1988-07-16
Judge(s)Allah Dino G. Memon
ResultApplication dismissed

1. ' This is an application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. For quashment of proceedings pending against the applicant under section 6(1)(a) and (c) of the Pasport Act, 1974 before the A.C.M. Xth South, Karachi.

2. ' The brief facts giving rise to the present application are that on 9-5-1984 applicant Sirajul Haq got endorsement on his passport for visiting India and also got the passport renewed by suppressing the fact that he was a Government servant and therefore, he was prosecuted under section 6(1) and (c) of the Passport Act, 1974. After the case was challaned the applicant moved an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. But the same was dismissed as premature.

3. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the State and have gone through the documents produced alongwith the quashment application.

4. ' It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no provision for the renewal of the passport in the Passport Act but it is provided under the rules and, therefore, the applicant could not be prosecuted for committing any breach of any of the rules. That the prosecution of the applicant under section 6 was illegal and without jurisdiction. In support of his contention he has relied upon PLD 1978 Lah.

5. 410.

6. ' The learned counsel for the State has contended that while applying for renewal/endorsement the applicant is to file a declaration in which he has to mention whether he was a Government servant and the present applicant has shown himself as businessman in the above application although he was working as `Beldar' in P.W.D. Since 24-5-1979 and therefore, he was liable under section 6(1)

(a) and (c) of the Passport Act. In support of his contention he has produced photo copy of the application for renewal of passport filed by the present applicant.

7. ' I have considered the contentions of the learned counsel and have gone through the documents produced by the parties. Section 6(1)(a) and (c) reads as under:- Section 6.-- Penalties for certain offences relating to Passport. (1) A person shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both if he:-

(a) make or makes use of any statement which he knows or believes to be false in any documents for obtaining passport or (b)

(c) wilfully conceals any fact which under the circumstances he ought to disclose for the purpose of obtaining a passport for himself or another person."

8. The bare reading of the above section will show that any person who makes any statements which he knows or believes to be false for obtaining passport or wilfully conceals any fact which under the circumstances he ought to disclose for the purpose of obtaining a passport for himself or another person shall bei punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine or with both. The application moved by the applicant for issuance of passport shows that he was a businessm an while in the application moved for renewal the following declaration has to be made by the applicant.

9. ' 6.1 declare on solemn affirmation that:-

(1) To the best of my knowledge and belief the information given in this form is correct;

(2) I am not a Government servant, an employee of a Semi-Government body, a Municipality, any other local body or a State-owned Industry:

(3) I have/have not served in the Armed Forces;

(4) I am not a reservist in the Armed Forces."

10. The above column of declaration shows that he had to mention the fact regarding his employment in Government service which he deliberately omitted to do so and therefore, his case clearly falls within the mischief of section 6(a) and (c) of the Passport Act.

11. ' As for as the decision in PLD 1978 Lah. 410 relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant was concerned, it is distinguishable and is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the above-cited case renewal of the passport was refused and the said order was challenged before the High Court in Constitutional Petition and it was held that:- "It was purely an executive function and issuing authority was best Judge to refuse or allow renewal of passport discretion in such circumstances was always of subjective satisfaction of executive and is not amenable to judicial review."

12. The word 'renew' has been defined in the Concise Oxford Dictionary as 'restore to original state, make (as good) as new. For instance when there is stipulation in the lease-deed to renew or extend the lease, there is a clear distinction between C the two, in that stipulation to renew requires making of new while one to extend does not. In the Black's Law Dictionary also word 'renew' has been assigned the same meaning.

13. ' In view of the fact that it was the duty of the applicant to have mentioned' the fact regarding his being in Government service in the application, and he 1 concealed this fact in his declaration form it cannot be said at this stage that the FIR. Does not disclose that the applicant had committed the alleged offence.

14. ' In view of the above discussion I am of the considered view that the application has no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.

15. ' I had decided the above matter by a short order on 10-7-1988 and these are the reasons for the same.

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch