2012 P Cr. L J 1572
[Balochistan]
Before Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, J
MUHAMMAD MAJID ---Applicant
Versus
GUL MUHAMMAD and 2 others ---Respondents
Criminal Miscellaneous (Quashment) Application No.191 of 2012, decided on 29th June, 2012.
Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ---
----Ss. 3, 4 & 489 -F---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.188, 154 & 561 -A---Dishonestly
issuing a cheque ---Punishment of offences committed beyond, but which by law may be tried
within Pakistan ---Extension of Pakistan Pe nal Code, 1860, to extra -territorial offences ---Scope ---
F.I.R. was registered against the accused (petitioner) for issuing a cheque which had been
dishonored by a bank outside Pakistan ---Petition for quashment of said F.I.R. ---Whether an
F.I.R. could be re gistered against a citizen of Pakistan, accused of an offence under the Pakistan
Penal Code, 1860, which was committed beyond the limits of Pakistan ---Principles.
Accumulative reading of sections 3 and 4 of P.P.C., and section 188, Cr.P.C., showed that s aid
provisions conferred extra -territorial jurisdiction on the criminal courts of Pakistan over
Pakistani citizens in respect of acts committed by them outside Pakistan. Application of P.P.C.,
had been extended to offences provided therein when committed b y a citizen of Pakistan even in
any country other than Pakistan itself by the provision made in section 4 of P.P.C.
Section 188, Cr.P.C., provided that when a citizen of Pakistan committed an offence at any place
without and beyond the limits of Pakistan , he might be dealt with in respect of such offence as if
it had been committed at any place within Pakistan at which he might be found. First proviso to
section 188, Cr.P.C., prohibited the conduct of an inquiry into such offences unless it was
certified by the Political Agent of Pakistan in the country where offence had been committed,
that in his opinion the charges were to be inquired into in Pakistan. Where there was no Political
Agent, sanction of the Federal Government would be necessary. Said provis ions of law clearly
demonstrated that the accusation could not be inquired into without certification of Political
Agent or Federal Government, as the case might be, but such bar did not extend to mere
registration of the F.I.R. under section 154, Cr.P.C. Sanction under section 188, Cr.P.C., was a
procedural requirement which could be produced even after submission of challan in a court of
competent jurisdiction. Required sanction could be secured even after submission of challan in
order to inquire into th e charge.
Present case was not a fit case for quashing of F.I.R. In order to comply with the provisions of
law contained in section 188, Cr.P.C., it would be open to the complainant and investigating
authorities to secure the required sanction to be able to inquire into the charge and take further
action as might be found to be in accordance with the law.
Petition for quashment of F.I.R. was dismissed in circumstances.
Attaullah Langove for Petitioner.
Abdul Khair Achakzai for Respondent No.1
Ateeq Ahmed Khan, D.P. -G. for the State.
Date of hearing: 26th June, 2012.
JUDGMENT
MUHAMMAD HASHIM KHAN KAKAR, J. ---Petitioner, Muhammad Majid son of Mian
Muhammad Sadiq, has been named as an accused in Crime No.102 of 2011, u nder section 489 -F
of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (P.P.C.) registered at City Police Station, Chaman, District
Killa Abdullah. By this application, filed under section 561 -A of the Criminal Procedure Code,
1898 (Cr.P.C.), he seeks quashment of that F.I.R .
2. ????????That succinct germane facts giving rise to instant petition are that the petitioner,
allegedly issued some cheques to respondent No.1 in connection with business transaction done
in between the parties, which ultimately were dishonoured from the RBS Bank, Dubai United
Arab Emirates. However, respondent No.1 lodged a case vide F.I.R. No.102 of 2011, under
section 489 -F of the P.P.C., dated 28th December, 2011, against the petitioner, which is so far
pending investigation.
3. ????????Mr. Atta ullah Langove, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that an
officer -in-charge of police station is competent to investigate a cognizable offence only when it
is committed within the jurisdiction of his police station, as provided under section 15 6(1) of the
Cr.P.C. According to him, as the alleged offence took place not only beyond the prescribed
jurisdiction of City Police Station, Chaman, but beyond the territorial limits of Pakistan itself.
Officer -in-charge of City Police Station, Chaman is no t competent to enquire into the alleged
offence, and the F.I.R. registered against the petitioner deserves to be quashed. He also drew my
attention to the provisions of section 188 of the Cr.P.C., to contend that a citizen of Pakistan is
liable to stand tr ial 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 th e
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 opini on, 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.
4. ????????Mr. Abdul Khair Achakzai, learned counsel for respondent No.1, in reply to
arguments mentioned above, contended that the F.I.R. was competently lodged by the officer -in-
charge of City Police Station, Chaman 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.
5. ????????I have considered the arguments of both the learned counsel with due
consideration and attention. This petition raises a novel and interesting question of law, viz.
whether an F.I.R., against a person accused of an offence under the Pakistan Penal Code,
committed beyond the limits of Pakistan, can be lodged? In order to understand the controversy
involved in the matter, it will be appropriate to have a glance at sections 3 and 4 of the P.P.C.
and section 188 of the Cr.P.C. which read as under: --
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.
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 i n 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 cit izen 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.
6. ????????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 extra -territorial 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 t he 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 such offences even beyond the
territories of the country.
7. ????????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 Pakista n 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? ce rtificate, but? the? bar does not extend to mere registration of 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 ch arge.
8. ????????In view of the above discussion, I do not consider this to be a fit case where
F.I.R., relating to the offence in question may be quashed. In order to comply with the provisions
of law contained in section 188 of the Cr.P.C., it will be open to the complainant and
investigating authorities? to? secure? the? required? sanction? to? be? able? to? inquire into the
charge and take further action as may be found to be in accordance with law.
Petition being without merits, is dismissed.
MWA /61/Q Petition dismissed.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.