P L D 2014 Balochistan 28
Before Muhammad Hasham Khan Kakar, J
ABDUL QADIR SHAH ---Petitioner
Versus
MUHAMMAD QASIM and 2 others ---Respondents
Criminal Miscellaneous Quashment No.546 of 2012, decided on 24th August, 2013.
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---
----S.188--- Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.3 & 4 ---Extra -territorial offences ---Investigation and trial
in Pakistan -Scope -Extra -territorial jurisdiction has been conferred by S.188, Cr.P.C. and Ss.3 & 4,
P.P.C. up on Criminal Courts in Pakistan over Pakistani citizens in respect of acts committed by them
outside Pakistan ---Application of Penal Code, 1860, has been extended to offences provided therein
when .committed by a citizen of Pakistan even in any country other than Pakistan itself by the
provision made under S.4, P.P.C. ---Penal provisions of Penal Code, 1860, are attracted to any citizen
of Pakistan, who commits such offences even beyond the territories of country.
(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ---
----Ss. 22-A, 154, 188 & 561- A---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.3, 4 & 302---Qatl -e-amd---
Quashing of proceedings ---Extra -territorial offences ---Authorization certificate ---Scope ---
Grievance of accused was that Ex -Officio Justice of Peace had allowed application under S.22- A,
Cr.P.C. and directed police to conduct investigation for offence committed outside the territory
of Pakistan, whereas no certificate of authorization of investigation was issued by Federal
Government ---Validity ---Accusation could not be inquired into without required certificate but
bar did not extend to mere registration of F.I.R. under 5.154, Cr.P.C. and nowhere a condition
was laid down to obtain such certificate before registration of F.I.R.--- Sanction under 5.188,
Cr.P.C. was a procedural requirement and 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 the charge ---Incident was a blind murder and all queries would be
answered after having full -fledged investigation made by police ---Documents issued by foreign
State, where alleged offence was committed, had no weight or relevancy as both the parties were
reportedly Pakistani national and residents of district Quetta ---Trial Court and police authorities in
Pakistan had authority to inquire into the matter ---High Court declined to interfere in the order passed
by Ex -Officio Justice of Peace---Petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Abdul Khair Ach akzai for Peititioner.
Miss Sarwat Hina, Addl. P.- G. for the State.
Date of hearing: 19th August, 2013.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD HASHIM KHAN KAKAR, J. ---Through this petition under section 561- A
of the Criminal Procedure Code 1898 (Cr.P.C.), the petitioner i.e. Abdul Qadir Shah has
called in question the order dated 18th October 2012 (the "impugned order"), passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge -III/Justice of the Peace, Quetta (the "trial Court"),
whereby an application under section 22- A of the Cr .P.C. filed by the respondent No.1 was
allowed and Station House Officer (S.H.O.) of Kuchlak Police Station was directed to
register F.I.R. against the petitioner and his alleged companions.
2. Necessary facts for disposal of instant petition are that re spondent No.1, namely,
Muhammad Qasim son of Abdul Khaliq filed an application under section 22- A of the
Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge, Quetta, which was entrusted to the learned trial
Court, stating therein that his brother; viz, Muhammad Isma il, a motor mechanic by
profession, was contacted by the proposed accused i.e. petitioner Abdul Qadir Shah, Sultan
Shah, sons of Haji Agha, Dadullah and Kaleemullah, residents of Mitha Chowk, Pashtoon
Abad, Quetta, and they made an offer to him to run a ga rage at Chaman on partnership basis,
which was accepted and, accordingly, Muhammad Ismail accompanied them to Chaman. On
7th August 2012, they received the dead body of Muhammad Ismail at Kuchlak sent by the
proposed accused persons, whose medical examinat ion was conducted and according to the
medical report, it transpired that the deceased was done to death by means of causing injuries
with knives and screwdrivers. According to the complainant that they made an attempt to
contact the accused persons, howev er, since then they disappeared.
3. Mr. Abdul Khair Achakzai, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that an officer -in-
charge/S.H.O. of a police station is competent to investigate a cognizable offence only when
it is committed within the jurisdiction of the said police station, as provided under section
156(1) of the Cr.P.C. According to him, as the alleged offence took place not only beyond
the prescribed jurisdiction of Kuchlak Police Station, Quetta, but also beyond the territorial
limits of the Pakistan itself. Officer -in-charge of Kuchlak Police Station, Quetta was not
competent to inquire into the alleged offence, and F.I.R., ordered to be registered against the
petitioner, deserves to be quashed. He further submitted that during the course of initial
investigation conducted by the police authorities of Kuchlak Police Station transpired that
the deceased was done to death by unknown culprits at Waish", a border area, which is
Afghan territory. While concluding his arguments, he also drew my atte ntion to the
provisions of section 188 of the Cr.P.C. and contended that a citizen of Pakistan is liable to
stand trial 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 plac e in Pakistan. He, however,
contended that the first proviso to section 188 of the Cr.P.C. limits the operation of the
substantive clause by providing that no charge as to any such offence shall be "inquired into"
in Pakistan, unless the Political Agent, i f there is one, for the territory in which the offence is
alleged to have been committed, certifies that, in his opinion, the charge, ought to be
inquired into in Pakistan. However, in respect of a place, when there is no political agent, the
sanction of t he Federal Government shall be necessary. Thus, on this score also, the F.I.R.
deserves to be quashed.
4. Miss. Sarwat Hina, learned Additional Prosecutor General, while defending the impugned
order passed by the learned trial Court, submitted that the i mpugned order is unexceptionable
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.
4. Before entering into the controversy, a r eference to the relevant provisions' i.e.
sections 3 and 4 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (P.P.C.) and section 188 of the Cr.P.C.
would be in order, These provisions read as follows: --
"3. Punishment of offences committed beyond, but which by law may b e 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.
4. 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 in 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 citizen 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 "
5. Accumulative readin g 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. T he 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 the 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.
6. 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 Pakistan 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, sancti on of the Federal Government will
be necessary. The said provisions of law clearly demonstrate that the accusation cannot be
inquired into without the required certificate, but the bar does not extend to mere registration
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 charge.
7. Reverting to the next contention of the learned counsel. for the petitioner that neither the
learned trial Court, nor S.H.O. of Kuchlak Police Station were authorized to inquire into the
matter, as the exact place of occurrence is unknown. The said contention has no legs to stand
on, as the provisions of sections 179 and 182 of the Cr.P.C. furnish a complete answer,
which read as follows:
"179. Accused triable in district where act is done or where consequence ensues.
When a person is accused of the commission of any offence by reason of anything
which had been done and of any consequence which has ensued, such offence may be
inquired into or tried by a Court within the limits of whose jurisdiction any such thing
has been done or any such consequence has ensued."
182. Place of inquiry or trial where scene of offence is uncertain or not in one district
only or where offence is continuing or consists of several acts. When it is uncertain in
which or several local areas an offence was committed, or
where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or
where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local
areas than, one, or
where it consists of several acts done in different local areas,
it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local
areas."
8. Accumulative study of both the aforesaid provisions of law would show that the impugned
order passed by the learned trial Court is unexceptionable. It is an admitted feature of the
case in hand that the deceased was lastly seen in the company of proposed accused persons,
when he accompanied them and proceeded to Chaman for running a garage and,
subsequently, his dead body was found at Kuchlak, thus, the venue of inquiry or trial of such
a case is primarily to be determined by the averments made in the complaint or charge sheet
and unless the facts mentioned therein are positively disproved. Ordinarily the Court, where
the charge sheet or complaint is filed, is to proceed with it. Needless to observe here that, it
is a blind murder case and all the queries would be answered after having a full -fledge
investigation made by police. Similarly, it may be relevant to mention here that the learned
counsel for the petitioner, during course of the arguments, made an attempt to place t on
record certain docum ents, purported to have been issued by the Administration of Spin
Boldak, Afghanistan, however, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the same have no
weight or relevancy, for the reason that both the parties are, reportedly, Pakistani National
and re sidents of district Quetta. Thus, the learned trial Court and police authorities of
Kuchlak Police Station have the authority to inquire into the matter. The petition is,
accordingly, dismissed.
These are the reasons of my short order dated 19th August 2013, announced in the open
Court.
MH/90/Bal 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.