17. Unlawful emigration, etc.--(1) Whoever,
except in conformity with the provisions of this Ordinance and the rules,
emigrates or departs or attempts to emigrate or depart shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which may be extended to five years, or with fine, or
with both.
(2) Whoever, except in conformity with the
provisions of this Ordinance or of the rules,
(a) makes, or attempts to make any agreement
with any person purporting to bind that person, or any other person, to
emigrate or depart; or
(b) causes or assist or attempts to cause or
assist, any person to emigrate or depart or to attempt to emigrate or depart or
to leave any place for the purpose of emigrating or departing; or
(c) causes any person engaged, assisted or
recruited by him, after grant of the licence referred to in Section 12, to
depart without appearing before the Protector of Emigrants as required by
Section 15 shall be punishable:--
(i) for a first offence, with imprisonment
for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both; and
(ii) for a second or subsequent offence, with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with
both.
(3) When, in the course of any proceeding in
connection with emigration, in which an Overseas Employment Promoter is
concerned, a breach of the provisions of this Ordinance or of the rules is
committed, such person shall be liable to the punishment provided by
sub-section (2) unless he proves that he was not responsible for and could not
have prevented the commission of the breach.
(4) Whoever, in contravention of the provisions
of Section 9, recruits a citizen of
COMMENTARY
Offences with which accused
were charged, did not attract prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C. Section 6
of Passports Act, 1974, prescribed maximum sentence of three years, whereas
S.17 of Emigration Ordinance, 1979, entailed maximum punishment of seven years.
Accused were in judicial lock-up and no recovery was to be effected from them.
Accused were not previous convicted and after transfer of Trial Judge, his
successor had not been named and it could not be said with any amount of
certainty as to how long the trial would take to begin. Accused could not be
retained in custody as a measure of punishment. PLJ 2007 Cr.C. (
Victims/prosecution
witnesses deposed the mode and manner under which payment was made by them to
accused who had promised to take them abroad and make arrangements for their
job, both victims while deposing before the trial Court had painted a vivid and
bright picture of occurrence. Witnesses remained stead fast in their lengthy
and searching cross-examination. Delay, in registration of case in such like
matter was very natural, because people are always interested in their money
and for that purpose they keep on making attempts and finally when they fail to
achieve the goal, then F.I.A. officials are approached for the redressal of
their grievance. Accused was facing agony of case against him for the last
about nine years and had suffered a lot. Accused had also undergone
considerable period as under trial prisoner as well as a convict, while
upholding conviction of accused, sentence of imprisonment of accused was
reduced to the period already undergone by him. 2006 YLR 1492 (
Accused was in jail for
the last seven months, he cannot be kept in jail for an indefinite period. PLJ
2008 Cr.C. (
Section 22(b) of the
Emigration Ordinance, 1979, prima facie, was not attracted in the case, as the
same entailed some kind of fraud played or deceipt practised upon the person by
misleading him and to extort money. None of the victims admittedly had made any
complaint of such fraud. Apparently accused. appeared to have assisted certain
persons to emigrate or depart from
Serious allegations had
been levelled against the accused. Accused had not denied having issued cheques
in favour of complainant which had been dishonoured. Filing of a civil suit by
the accused seeking cancellation of certain documents, alleged to have been
forcibly obtained from him, prima facie, appeared to be a device to make his
case, one of further inquiry. Mere old-age of 60 years of accused was not
sufficient to release him on bail when he was involved in an offence falling
within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C. Several other enquires of
similar nature were also being conducted against the accused. Challan had
already been submitted in the trial Court. Bail was declined to accused in
circumstances. 2006 MLD 330.
Petitioner had no locus
standi to initiate present application as both affectees had appeared before
High Court and had submitted that their grievance stood redressed and
respondent did not owe anything to them. Cheque in-question had never been
issued by respondent. Prosecution version that affectees had been coaxed into
making favourable statements and affidavits on pretence that they would be paid
their amount for which a cheque had later on been issued by son of respondent
has weight. Bank account was in name of respondent's son. Respondent had not
been able to explain in what connection he had received money from affectees.
Respondent had manoeuvred affidavits and statements of affectees on basis of
which bail had been allowed to him. He was thereby able to successfully steal a
march on Court itself. Such a conduct on part of a person who seek
discretionary relief from a Court of law was most reprehensible. He could not
be allowed to benefit from an order, which he had been able to procure by
deceitful means. Order whereby respondent had been allowed post-arrest bail was
recalled. PLJ 2007 Cr.C. (
Accused made offer that
he was willing to deposit amount in question with the Trial Court and said
amount would be payable to complainant only subject to the decision of the
case. Police Officer concerned had confirmed that amount in question had been
deposited by accused in the Trial Court. State counsel also confirmed the said
situation. Accused was admitted to bail, accordingly. 2006 MLD 1189.
Involvement of accused
with specific role seemed to be a later innovation during investigation.
Accused, according to school leaving certificate was minor at the relevant
time, which had given strength to arguments of accused that in fact his elder
brother had received amount but in order to pressurize accused party the entire
family of co-accused had been roped in the case; in that view of the matter,
prima facie case of accused fell within the ambit of further inquiry entitling
him to concession of bail. Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances. 2006
MLD 1281.
Complainant of F.I.R.
bore no animosity or ill-will towards the petitioner. Ample incriminatory
material was available against the accused. Offences charged with attracted
prohibitory clause of section 497(1), Cr.P.C. Bail was refused. 2006 MLD 1386.
Case of prosecution
rested upon statements of three deportees but all of them had been involved in
the case as accused as they were fugitives from law; and their where-abouts
were not known. During trial, the deportees never appeared before the Trial
Court and though Trial Court had convicted and sentenced co-accused but their
sentences were suspended by High Court keeping in view non-appearance of
deportees and Supreme Court had also upheld order of the High Court. Accused
who left
Accused was nominated in
the F.I.R. with the clear allegation of fraudulently depriving the complainant
of an amount of Rs. 600,000 alongwith his passport and I.D. Card on the false
promise of sending him to
Accused had already been
opined by Investigation Agency to be innocent and a recommendation had already
been made for seeking his discharge. Said fresh development in case would
surely benefit the accused in the matter of bail. Accused was admitted to bail,
in circumstances. 2006 PCr.LJ 1715.
Accused, according to
F.I.R., had only arranged for a ticket in the capacity of being the owner of
the Travelling Agency of the Airline. Offences with which the accused was
charged were not supported by the evidence on record. Case of accused, thus,
required further probe as contemplated by sub-section (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C.
Accused was admitted to bail accordingly. 2006 PCr.LJ 513.
Trial Court had declined
bail to accused on the ground that he would attempt to proceed abroad by
personating for some one-else. Passport of accused was already lying with the
Authorities. No circumstances were shown from which such intention of accused
could be gathered. Trial Court, in circumstances was in error in declining bail
to accused. 2006 PCr.LJ 1635.
Victims/prosecution
witnesses deposed the mode and manner under which payment was made by them to
accused who had promised to take them abroad and make arrangements for their
job. Said payment was made in the house of Lamberdar of the village. No doubt
during investigation passports of both victims were never taken into possession
but it was apparent from the record that those documents were in the custody of
accused who was travelling with the witnesses/victims. Non-production of said
documents, was of no value, in circumstances. Both victims while deposing
before the Trial Court had painted a vivid and bright picture of occurrence.
Witnesses remained steadfast in their lengthy and searching cross-examination.
Nothing was in the statements of said witnesses/victims either to doubt their
credibility or to say that they had any malice or grouse against accused to falsely
involve him in case. Evidence of said witnesses inspired confidence, rang true
and same was sufficient to uphold conviction of accused. Delay, in registration
of case in such-like matter was very natural because people are always
interested in their money and for that purpose they keep on making attempts and
finally when they fail to achieve the goal, then F.I.A. officials are
approached for the redressal of their grievance. Delay in lodging F.I.R. in
case, thus was of no significance. Accused was facing agony of case against him
for the last about nine years and had suffered a lot. Accused had also
undergone considerable period as under-trial prisoner as well as a convict.
While upholding conviction of accused, sentence of imprisonment of accused was
reduced to the period already undergone by him. 2006 YLR 1492.
Allegation made against
the accused in the F.I.R. was not hit by S.17 of the Emigration Ordinance,
1979. Tampering with a passport was not included in the definition of
"Depart" or "Emigrate". Accused was already settled in
According to F.I.R.
accused had undertaken to send three persons abroad for purpose of employment.
Said three persons had in fact gone abroad and then returned to
Four passports of
intending emigrants had been recovered from the house of accused during
investigation. Fifteen witnesses had specifically made statements before the
police that the accused had received huge amount for sending them abroad for
employment but later on failed to fulfil his commitment, nor he had returned
the amount. Sufficient evidence, thus, was prima facie, available on record to
link the accused with the commission of the offence under S.22 of the
Emigration Ordinance, 1979, which fell within the prohibitory clause of
S.497(1), Cr.P.C. Bail was declined to accused in circumstances. 2005 MLD 980.
Statements of witnesses
recorded by the police had revealed that the accused had not received any
amount and the only allegation against him was that he was present at the time
when co-accused had received the amount. Investigation qua the accused was
complete and he was no more required by the police. Petition for cancellation
of bail granted to accused was dismissed in circumstances. 2005 MLD 994.
No material whatsoever
was collected by Investigating Officer during investigation in support of
allegations levelled against accused in F.I.R. During investigation some oral
statements were made by complainant and prosecution witnesses before
Investigating Officer and as against that, accused had submitted his written
statement before Investigating Officer maintaining his innocence and
attributing falsehood to complainant party. F.I.R. showed that complainant's
brother had been taken by accused with him to
Allegation against
accused was that he had received amount alongwith Passport etc., from
complainant on pretext of sending him abroad for employment, but that
commitment was never honoured nor amount had been returned by accused to
complainant. Record of case had revealed that a dispute of settlement of
account existed between the parties and a cheque issued by accused in favour of
complainant was not honoured. In view of facts/data available on record
possibility that dispute was of settlement of account between parties and that
case had been got registered by twisting the facts, could not be ruled out.
Case against accused being of further inquiry, accused was admitted to bail.
2005 MLD 1574.
Accused was behind the
bars for the last more than eight months and prosecution had not submitted
challan before Trial Court. Nothing was recovered from accused during
investigation and entire case of prosecution rested upon oral statements of
prosecution witnesses. Investigation in case was almost complete and accused
was no more required for said purpose. In view of conduct of Investigation
Agency i.e. delay in submitting challan before the Trial Court, accused was
admitted to bail. 2005 MLD 1582.
A large number of
persons had got their statements recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C. who had
allegedly been deprived of their passports and cash and had levelled serious
allegations against the accused for having deceived them for sending abroad.
Mere fact that
the accused had procured affidavits of a couple of affected person out
of about 35 persons, did not advance his case for bail. Practice of defrauding
innocent persons under the guise of sending them abroad, had assumed alarming
proportions and this menace had not so far been dealt with the amount of
seriousness which it deserved. Bail was refused to accused in circumstances.
2005 MLD 1779.
Allegations levelled
against accused in the F.I.R. as well as in statements recorded under S.161,
Cr.P.C., were merely general and collective in nature. Complainant party had
failed to specify as to when accused had received any money from complainant,
how much money was received by petitioner and where such money was paid to the
petitioner. No documentary evidence was available on record so as to
substantiate vague and general allegations levelled against accused by complainant
party. Role allegedly played by accused during entire transaction was merely
secondary in nature to that allegedly played by co-accused who had already been
admitted to post-arrest bail on basis of a compromise between him and
complainant party. Nothing had been recovered from possession of accused during
investigation of case. Investigation of case having already been finalized to
the extent of accused, his physical custody was no longer required for purpose
of investigation. Case against accused calling for further inquiry into his
guilt within purview of sub-section (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C., he was admitted to
bail. 2005 PCr.LJ 413.
Accused allegedly
receiving huge money from different persons for sending them abroad but failing
to do so. Accused under arrest for last about six months. No recovery of money
or any document effected from him. Person of accused no longer required by
police. Co-accused already on bail. Case found to be of further inquiry. Bail
granted in circumstances. 1987 PCr.LJ 1045.
Reasonable grounds
existed to believe that accused was involved in commission of offence alleged
in F.I.R. Police papers showing that person who had been allegedly duped, had
clearly and specifically involved accused. F.I.R. showing number of
incriminating articles recovered from accused. Mere circumstances that there
was no personal recovery of any documents or material from accused, that one of
two Mashirs, is a complainant and other Mashir was also from department, that
there was a delay of 6 hours in lodging of F.I.R. and that seven persons who in
their statements under S. 161, Cr.P.C, stated that each of them had paid a
certain amount to accused for purpose of being sent abroad had not specified
time when such payments had been made, held, would not be ground for granting
bail to accused in circumstances. 1985 PCr.LJ 2479.