Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeals Nos.16 and 17 of 1983, decided on 10th November, 1986.

‑‑‑S.22(B)‑‑Evidence, appreciation of‑‑Accused having no licence for sending persons abroad yet depriving witnesses of considerable amount on pretext of providing them employment abroad‑‑Prosecution witnesses natural and truthful and having no enmity against accused‑‑Accused clearly implicated by such witnesses on each material particular‑ Conviction, held, recorded on basis of sufficient material.

‑‑‑S. 233 read with S. 234‑‑Misjoinder of charges‑‑Contention that only one F.I.R. recorded but accused faced trial on two charges and for that reason whole proceedings vitiated, held, had no force‑‑Separate charge‑sheets for distinct offences could be submitted against accused, in circumstances.

‑‑‑S. 22(B)‑‑Sentence, reduction in‑‑Case registered in 1981, conviction recorded in 1983 and appeal remained pending till 1986‑‑Sentence of 18 months, R.I. reduced to 6 months, R.I., in circumstances.

Muhammad Ali Sheikh for Appellant.

Akhlaque Ahmed Siddiqui for the State.

Date of hearing: 10th November, 1986.

This judgment would dispose of above two appeals filed by the appellant against the separate convictions recorded against him. In Criminal Appeal No.16 of 1983 he has been convicted for an offence under section 22(B) Emigration Ordinance, 1979 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 18 months and pay a fine of Rs.20,000 in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for six months. It was directed that if the fine is paid an amount of Rs.3,000 be given to Muhammad Amir and Rs.2,000 to Abdul Aziz Bhatti which was talon by the accused from thorn on the pretext of providing them employment in Saudi Arabia, In Criminal Appeal No.17 of 1983 he was convicted for an offence under section 22(8) Emigration Ordinance, 1979 and was sentenced to undergo R.I, for 18 months and to pay a final of Rs.20,000 or in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for six months more. It was directed that if fine is paid, an amount of Rs.3,000 be given to P.Ws. Muhammad Based and Muhammad Nasir each which he had taken from them on the pretext of providing them employment abroad. The substantive sentences in both the cases were directed to run concurrently.

2. The facto in brief are that P.Ws, Muhammad Saved, Muhammad Nazir alongwith Aziz Bhatti and Muhammad Amir had gone to the appellant for getting them employment in Saudi Arabia and the accused told them that he would charge Ra.3,000 from each one of them at the initial stage and would got passport, identity card and six copied of their respective photos and the remaining amount of Rs.7,000 would be taken by him after he is able to get them employment. Muhammad Based, Muhammad Nazir and Amir gave Ro,3,000 each to the accused while Abdul Asia Bhatti paid him Rs,2,000 in presence of Muhammad Nasim and Asghar Ali as they had also gone to accused in connection with the employment abroad, The appellant after taking the said amount from theme P.Ws. had boon keeping them on hopes and failed to got them employment. As such these persons gave an application Exh.6 to the Deputy Director F.I.A . Emigration Karachi Airport, Mr, J . S , Bokhari S.I. F.I.A. after holding preliminary enquiry on the written complaint of those four P.Ws. lodged first information report on behalf of the State against the present appellant and presented the same before P.W .Masroor Ahmed Khan, Assistant Director F.I.A. Karachi on the same day who had countersigned the same and gave the papers to J.S. Bokhari for further investigation who filed two challans before the Court to stand trial for the Offences, 1070. The accused did not plead guilty to the charge. At the two trials separate statements of P.W, Abdul Asia, Muhammad Amir, Asghar All, Muhammad Nasim, Jurist Shah and Masroor Ahmed were recorded. The appellant in his 342 Cr.P.C. statement admitted that he is not Overseas Employment Promotor but has denied having taken the amount from the P.W. for getting them employment in Saudi Arabia, He further stated that he and P.W, Abdul Asia were carrying on business of manufacturing towels but there was a dispute between them and, therefore, Aziz Bhatti has got him implicated in this vase. Ho has not examined any witness in defence.

P.W. Abdul Asia has deposed that he alongwith P.W.s. Muhammad Amir, Muhammad Saeed and Muhammad Nazeer had gone to the house of. the accused and they had paid Rs,1,000 in all to the appellant. Three P.W.s, have paid Rs.3,000 each and P,W, Abdul Asia made payment of Ra.2,000 tea the appellant, The P,Ws, were directed by the appellant to contact him on 30-1‑1980 at Daimia Factory at 7-00 p.m, They went to the factory at the appointed date and time but the accused did not turn up, The accused had been keeping them on hopes but failed to get them employment in Saudi Arabia. He further stated that Asghar 4 All and Muhammad Naeem were also sitting with the accused when he had taken the amount from them. P.Ws. Muhammad Amir, Muhammad Nazeer and Muhammad Nasim have corroborated the statement of P.W,. Abdul Asia or each material particulars, P.Ws. Asghar Ali and Muhammad Nasim have also supported these P.Ws. that they had approached the appellant and made payment to him in there presence, the appellant told the P.Ws, that he would prepare their document within two month, The official witnesses have appeared to state that they have made Investigation and challaned the accrued In the Court. The appellant has alleged that there was business dispute between the appellant and Abdul Asia but he failed to lead any evidence In defence and as pointed out by the learned trial Jud a that the accused has been shitting his version about the business being carried on by him and Abdul Asia and not specifically mentioned as to on what transaction the dispute between them had arisen, The defence plea taken by the appellant was imaginary and concocted. All the P.W, have clearly implicated the appellant. No enmity has been established against them, They are natural and truthful witnesses, The appellant had no licence for sending the persons abroad as such the conviction recorded on the basis of sufficient material.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that only on F.I.R. was recorded against the appellant but he had to face the trial on two charge, therefore, the entire trial and proceedings have been vitiated, This contention has no force, The appellant has cheated four persons and separate offences in respect of each P.W, had been committed by the appellant. Under section 233, Cr.P.C, there shall be a separate charge for ovary distinct offence subject to the provisions of sections 234, 235, 236 and 239. In the present case section 234, Cr.P.C, would be attracted which provides that when a person is accused of more offence than on of the same kind committed within the space of twelve months he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for any number of them not expending three, Technically the appellant could be tried for four offences though only one first information report was recorded but separate charge sheets have been submitted against the appellant. The trial was not vitiated on this account, The trial was legal and proper and In accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Even other wise the appellant has not been prejudiced as the substantive sentences In the two oases have bean ordered to run concurrently, The learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction on merits, He has not disputed the correctness of the evidence on record. He has however, requested that as the appellant is facing trial since 6-1-1981, therefore, a lenient view In awarding the punishment may be taken, The trial Court has already taken the lenient view, However, keeping in view of the fact that the case was registered in the year 1981 and the conviction was recorded in 1983, thereafter, his appeal is pending in this Court, reduce the sentence to six months R.I, and fine of Rs,10,000 (Rupees ten thousand only) in each vase, The substantive sentences are to run concurrently, In default of payment of fine he would further suffer R.I. for four months In each ease, if the fine is recovered Rs. 9,000 be given each to P.W. Muhammad Nazeer, Muhammad Saw and Muhammad Amir and Rs,2,000 to Abdul Aziz, The appellant will also be entitled to the benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C.

The appellant is on boil, He should surrender himself to undergo the remaining sentence, With this modification in sentence the appeal is dismissed.

S.G.D(5111/K) Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.