' Through this petition filed under section 497, Cr.P.C. The petitioner seeks post-arrest bail in Indictment No,63/94, dated 27-4-1994 under section 17/22, Emigration Ordinance, 1979 registered at Police Station, F.IA. Passport Cell, Lahore.
2. The facts, in brief, are that an Inquiry No,475/93, dated 1-11-1993 was conducted by one Muhammad Hanif, Sub-Inspector, F.IA., Passport Cell, Lahore against the petitioner, concluding therein that Mohsan Hussain son of Jaffar had paid a sum of Rs,1,25,000 to Tariq Javaid Butt, petitioner herein, in the presence of his wife and brother for sending him abroad for overseas employment. On 7-9-1993 the petitioner had taken the emigrant alongwith him to Iran from where to Turkey and thereafter to Balgharia. The petitioner had disappeared from there on the pretext for providing him Visa for France. The complainant was left alone and he had become destitute in a foreign country till he had made arrangements to come back to his own country. The petitioner was approached for the repayment of the money and he, after avoiding many times, ultimately flatly refused to pay back the money obtained by him through a fraud. On the conclusion of the enquiry the matter was recommended for registration of case, whereupon the abovesaid case was registered.
3. The bail petition was moved in the Court of Special Judge (Central), Lahore and the same was declined vide his order, dated 12-10-1994.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner impetuously contends that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner. The F.I.R. Does not disclose any offence. Maintains that offences under section 17/22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 are non-cognizable and only the complaint could be filed under subsection (6) of section 24 of the said Ordinance. The petitioner is no more required for the purpose of investigation. No useful purpose seems to be served while keeping him in jail. He is entitled to have a concession of bail.
5. Conversely, the bail petition was vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the State on the ground that the innocent peoples are being looted because of illegal activities of such like persons. The petitioner had played a fraud and he had not only taken away Rs,1,25,000 from the complainant but also took him to abroad and left there to his destitution. Further, argues that the report prepared by the Investigating Officer be treated as a complaint under subsection (6) of section 24 of Ordinance, 1979. He has placed reliance on Manzoor Ahmad Akhtar v. Special Judge Central, Lahore PLD 1995 Lah.
1.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the State and have also gone through the relevant previsions of law and the record has also been perused, with their assistance.
7. The petitioner has fraudulently obtained Rs,1,25,000 on the pretext of sending the complainant abroad for Overseas employment. He was left to destitute in the country of export. The other contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the offences under section 17/22 of the Emigration Ordinance are non-cognizable and in this view of the matter no case could be registered or investigated, only a criminal complaint could have been filed under subsection (6) of section 24 of the Ordinance, 1979.
8. The word complaint occurring in subsection (6) of section 24 having not been defined any wherein the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 and the word complaint as defined in section 4(i)(h) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 should have not unnecessarily be taken as a compulsion in the Emigration Ordinance, 1979. Even otherwise under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 the complaint is to be made to a Magistrate whereas no trial can be conducted by the Magistrate under the abovesaid Emigration Ordinance. The learned counsel for the State has rightly relied upon the abovesaid judgment and I respectfully follow the dictum laid down in the precedent case. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced below:- "According to section 4(1)(h) of Cr.P.C. The word's and expression in this Code have the following meaning, unless a different intention appears from the subject or context. This means that the definition of the complaint given in Code is expressly restricted to the Code and to no other law, even if it be partaking of the subject covered by the Cr.P.C. Therefore, there is no compulsion in the Code that the definition of complaint be read in the Ordinance. An examination of the Ordinance reveals that even in this legislation, there is no compulsion and none can he called, to follow the definition of the word given in the Code. On this analysis the submission of the learned counsel that the definition of complaint as given in the Code be read, can safely be overruled. After this overruling, the further argument that cognizance of the offences on police reports by the Special Judges in these cases is invalid, looses its weight inasmuch as meaning of the complaint given in various dictionaries (as seen above) does not rule out the report of a Police Officer. A report or a writing of a Police Officer would be and is as much a complaint as that of any other officer or even of a citizen written on a bare piece of paper."
9. In this view of the matter, the report made by the Investigating Officer shall be deemed to be a complaint within the meaning of subsection (6) of section 24 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979.
10. In view of what has been discussed above, I hold that the offences under sections 17 and 22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 are scheduled offences, F.I.R. Could be registered and the same be investigated by the Federal Investigating Agency. The petitioner committed a fraud and has not returned the money to the victim. It is quite obvious that reasonable grounds do exist to believe that the petitioner has committed an offence which squarely falls under subsection (1) of section 497, Cr.P.C. And as such he is not entitled to the concession of bail. This petition, therefore, is dismissed.