1. ' In the result of enquiry on the written complaint by Muhammad Raftaj, F.I.R. No,101 of 1999 under section 22(a)(b) of Emigration Ordinance, 1979 was registered at F.I.A. Passport Cell, Karachi against applicant Rashid Razzak and his father Ch. Abdur Razzak.
2. ' The report indicates that accused Abdul Razzak and Rashid Razzak of M/s. Labour, Overseas Employment Promoters, having their office at Room No,9, 9th floor, R.K. Square, New Challi, Karachi, on the pretext of providing them foreign employment, knocked down amount of Rs,1,80,000 and travel documents from complainant, as well as his two brothers namely Javed Iqbal and Habib Hussain. The agents Ch. Abdul Razzak and Rashid Razzak neither provided abroad employment nor returned their cash amount and travel documents.
3. ' It is contended by learned counsel that the applicant has no concern with recruiting business which was on licence of his father Ch. Abdul Razzak and he is involved at the instance of one Parvez Mehmood, Ex.-Manager of his father. He further asserted that no incriminating material is recovered from him and the F.I.R. Is delayed by three years. Learned counsel further argued that section 22 of Immigration Act provides the imprisonment for a term which may extend to fourteen years or with fine or with both, therefore, in view of pronouncements reported in cases of M.Akhtar v.
4. The State, 1984 PCr.LJ 2341, Arshad Mahmood v. The State, 1985 PCr.LJ p. 2048 and Tariq Bashir and others v. The State, PLD 1995 SC p. 342, the offence comes out of the embargo of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
5. ' Mr. Mamnoon Hassan, learned Dy.A.-G. Appearing for the State has opposed bail plea, stating that the name of applicant figures in F.I.R. And he is member of the group having duped and deceived the simple people. He further asserted that there is no delay, as the victims were perusing their matter before the accused and they were keeping them on hopes. Learned Dy.A.-G. Argued that the applicant is son and associate of Ch. Abdul Razzak who has extorted heavy amount of about five millions from poor people of this country and that there is apprehension that they would again repeat the same offence as they have been changing their offices from one place to another. He has further stated that the offence is covered by prohibitory clause and in no way it comes out of prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C.
6. ' Section 22 of Immigration Ordinance, 1979 reads as under:--- "22. Receiving money etc. For providing foreign employment.
7. ' Whoever for providing or securing, or on the pretext of providing or securing, to or for any person employment in any country beyond the limits of Pakistan:---
(a) being on Overseas Employment Promoter, charges any fee in addition to prescribed amount,, or
(b) not being such a Promoter demands or receives, or attempts to receive for himself or for any other person any money or other valuable thing.
8. ' Shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to fourteen years or with fine, or with both."
9. No doubt the section provides imprisonment for fourteen years or fine but because of that fine, the offence cannot and does not come out of embargo put by section 497(1), Cr.P.C. As it is the quantum of imprisonment alone which forms the basis for the application of embargo. Fine is no consideration under the proviso, even if, the offence can be punished for fine alone still the quantum of imprisonment would remain intact. The proviso speaks of quantum of imprisonment which in the instant case is fourteen years and as such, the embargo is fully attracted. I am sorry, I cannot persuade myself to agree with the view of reported cases I, therefore, respectfully disagree with the view expressed by my learned brothers having taken the other view, while sitting single.
10. On merits, the applicant is son of Abdul Razzak, who is absconding. Besides, that connection the direct evidence of victims is that it was this applicant who personally received Rs, 1,20,000 the major portion of payment. Therefore, he played vital role in this episode also. He was implicated in initial complaint, during preliminary enquiry and the F.I.R. Also. Apparently, there seems no reason for his false implication by the sufferer.
11. ' The material collected during investigation indicates the other activities of this nature by the same group. The applicant and his father were said to be active at Islamabad in past and then shifted to Karachi after their exposure. They are alleged to have deprived different people of their amounts to the extent of five millions.
12. ' In these days groups 2 of unscrupulous persons have emerged and they are on rampage and are actively involved in deceiving and depriving the innocent citizens of their earnings.
13. ' Reference can also be made to a case of Javed Akhtar Junejo v. The State, 1996 PCr.0 p. 1563 and Bashir Ahmed v. The State through F.I.A. 1998 Cr.LJ p.
14. 549.
15. ' In such a situation no softer attitude is desired to such persons.
16. ' Tariq Bashir's case reported in PLD 1995 SC p. 34 is on different footing and the principle laid down therein applies when case comes out of embargo contained in section 497(1). Moreover, there are certain exceptions in aforesaid case also and bail can be refused to those persons, who are likely to repeat the offence, abscond or tamper with evidence, even if, the case is not covered by prohibitory clause. The case in hand is covered by the prohibition contained under section 497(1), Cr.P.C. As observed above.
17. In view of above reasons and circumstances, applicant does not deserve bail and has rightly refused the same by the trial Court. Application is dismissed.