Citation Name: 2019 PCrLJ 41 ISLAMABAD, AAMIR SHAMAS VS State
Ss. 36 & 37--- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.
426---Hacking of social media account---Suspension of sentence---Short
sentence---Accused was convicted by Trial Court on commission of cyber crime
and was sentenced to imprisonment of 3 years along with fine---Accused sought
suspension of sentence on the plea of short sentence--- Validity---Petitioner
was prima facie charged with offences under Ss. 36 & 37 of Electronic
Transactions Ordinance, 2002 as he allegedly hacked Facebook account of
complainant---Accused created two other fake IDs of complainant and started
harassing her by way of fabricating her pictures in loose manner and sent same
to her, her father, relatives and friends which required appreciation to
segregate legal and factual aspects after appreciating evidence during hearing
of main appeal as to whether prosecution had substantiated charges against
accused under law or not---Only one month had lapsed after conviction of
petitioner which did not cross required time frame of six months in cases where
3 years' sentence was awarded---Application was dismissed in circumstances.
Citation Name: 2018 SCMR 1851 SUPREME-COURT, SLACKNESS IN
THE PROGRESS OF PENDING ENQUIRIES RELATING TO FAKE BANK ACCOUNTS VS STATE
S. 3---Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974 (VIII of
1975), S. 5---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 184(3)---Human Rights
case---Fake/benami bank accounts connected with various individuals and
entities used for money laundering--- Formation of Joint Investigation Team
("JIT")---Federal Investigation Agency ("FIA") which was
investigating the fake/benami bank accounts contended that progress of
investigation was slow on account of huge quantity of electronic data that
required unravelling and interpretation; that in order to conduct effective,
in-depth and incisive investigations to discover the truth, a broad based,
multidimensional and technically skilled team of experts was required which at
present was not available with FIA; that on account of alleged involvement of
high profile and powerful political and business figures with the tainted
transactions, who had powerful connections within the government, investigation
was being seriously hampered and at times wilfully obstructed at every stage,
and that the Supreme Court should, therefore, form a Joint Investigation Team
("JIT") to investigate the present matter---Held, that record
produced prima facie showed that fake accounts had been opened in various Banks
in the names of persons whose Computerized National Identity Cards (CNICs) had
been misused without their consent or knowledge---Many such persons appeared
before the Supreme Court and categorically stated that they had no knowledge of
the accounts in question---Huge sums of money running into billions had been
deposited in the said accounts by or on behalf of the persons who were under
investigation or entities controlled by them---After being deposited in the
said accounts, such funds had either been routed to other accounts which were
traceable with some due diligence or withdrawn without any ostensible trail
available---Evidence of large sum of foreign exchange being routed out of the
country through hawala transfers by one of the arrested suspects had added an
additional dimension to the investigation---Specialized knowledge of financial
transactions and expertise in identifying and tracing movement of funds through
banking channels and otherwise was required, in order to conduct a proper probe
and investigation in the matter---Expertise in working of companies, banking
transactions, electronic transactions and cyber activities relating to money
transfers was needed along with knowledge of reporting requirements and
monitoring regime put in place by the State Bank---Modes of discovering and
tracing suspicious transactions and modes utilized for unlawful circulation and
movement of money within the country and abroad were also required---Such
specialized expertise was not presently available within the FIA---In the
interest of justice and to ensure that national resources and national wealth
which belong to people of the country was not looted, plundered or
misappropriated, a high powered and highly skilled Joint Investigation Team
("JIT") was required to be set up---Supreme Court ordered
constitution of a JIT, consisting of officials from the FIA, Regional Tax
Office, State Bank, National Accountability Bureau, Securities and Exchange
Commission of Pakistan and Inter-Services Intelligence, for the purpose of
conducting a thorough, in-depth and incisive investigation and probe into the
matter of fake Bank accounts to uncover the persons involved and collect all
material evidence for the purpose of ensuring that in case an offence was made
out, the persons involved therein are properly prosecuted---Supreme Court
directed that the JIT shall have all powers relating to inquiries and investigations
including those available in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the National
Accountability Ordinance, 1999, the Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974 and
the Anti-Corruption Laws, etc; that all executive authorities or agencies in
the country shall render assistance and provide support to the JIT in its
working, if required; that the JIT shall submit periodic reports before the
Supreme Court qua the progress made in the investigation on fortnightly basis;
that the Additional Director General, FIA, who shall head the JIT may co-opt
any other expert who may in his opinion be necessary to complete the
investigation in an effective and timely manner; that the first report of the
JIT shall be filed within a period of 15 days; that in order to ensure that the
investigation was conducted in a professional, transparent and effective
manner, neither the JIT nor FIA nor any of the members of the JIT shall issue
press releases or provide information relating to the investigation to the
media; that owing to the apprehensions about the safety of the investigators,
the Pakistan Rangers shall provide adequate and effective security to the
investigators and to ensure that they performed their functions without any
fear to their life or liberty or that of their families, and that such
protection shall also upon request be provided to the witnesses.
Citation Name: 2018 PCrLJ 739 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE, JUNAID ARSHAD VS State
2016 SCMR 2064, PLD 1994 Lah. 377, PLD 1994 Lahore 377, PLD
2016 SC 171,
S. 497---Penal Code
(XLV of 1860), Ss. 500, 120(b) & 109---Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act
(XL of 2016), Ss. 4, 16, 20, 21 & 24---Defamation, criminal conspiracy,
abetment, unauthorized copying or transmission of data, unauthorized use of
identity information, offences against dignity of a natural person, offences
against modesty of a natural person and minor, cyber stalking---Pre-arrest
bail, recalling of---Allegation against the accused was that he with the rank
of Senior Police Officer, created a fake facebook profile in complainant's name
( his former wife) and thereby established digital communication with
co-accused on his profile and through the cyber medium dispatched/uploaded
material that included complainant's graphically explicit images---Accused
induced the co-accused to establish liaison with the complainant, surprised
embarrassingly as the images went viral---Argument that the accused, still
struggling to save the bond, could not conceivably upload graphic images of a
lady, though estranged, nonetheless being mother of his four children, to incur
a perennial embarrassment, though ingeniously articulated, faded into
insignificance in the face of formidable forensic evidence, inexorably pointed
upon culpability of accused---Status of accused as a senior Civil Servant was
beside the mark as there were no more equals in law and the office by itself
did not confer respectability---Arrest in cognizable cases, an essential step
towards investigation---Anticipatory bail was an extraordinary remedy, which
could not be claimed in every criminal case as a substitute for post arrest
bail---Accused had not been able to point out a single circumstance to even
obliquely suggest any malice lurking behind the intended arrest---Ad interim
pre-arrest bail granted earlier was recalled and bail petition was dismissed in
circumstances.
Citation Name: 2018 PCrLJ 408 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE USMAN
BIN MEHMOOD VS State
S. 497---Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (XL of 2016),
Ss. 20, 21 & 24---cyber-crime---Bail, refusal of---Case not falling within
prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.---Accused was arrested on allegation that
objectionable material was generated by cell-phone number subscribed by
accused---Plea raised by accused was that he was entitled to concession of bail
as offences Scheduled were non-bailable and did not attract bar contained under
S. 497, Cr.P.C.--- Validity---Held, though bail in offences punishable with
less than ten years of imprisonment was ordinarily granted as a rule, however,
such concession was to be extended having regard to facts and circumstances of
each case---Court, in appropriate cases, could justifiably depart from such
rule to deny the favour---Allegation against accused, supported by technical
evidence was that he, by betraying trust reposed by prosecutrix, exposed her on
internet and shared indecent images not only with her better half but with
others as well---Such was a flagrant intrusion into privacy that had brought a
young lady into perennial embarrassment and ridicule within and outside family
fold---Reference to prosecutrix's volitional intimacy with accused as
contributory factor tantamounted to add insult to injury---High Court declined
to receive plea of petitioner with favour in exercise of discretionary
jurisdiction---Bail application was dismissed in circumstances.
Citation Name: 2018 PLC(CS) 166 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH, NISAR
AHMED VS PAKISTAN NATIONAL SHIPPING CORPORATION
General provident fund, recovery of---Scope---Compromise was
effected between the employee and the department had agreed to accept the
resignation of employee and to pay all legal dues---General provident fund due
to the employee till the date of compromise had also been paid to the
employee---Deduction on account of provident fund was also made by the
department---If employee had received the amount, at proper time he would have
earned profit on the same---Second appeal was allowed to the extent of the
amount payable to the employee by the department together with profit on said
amount at the prevailing cyber rate till realization.
Citation Name: 2017 PCrLJ 1715 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN,
MUHAMMAD AZAM DAVI VS State
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 109---Prevention of
Electronic Crimes Act (XL of 2016), Ss. 16(2), 20(1), 24(c) (d)---Unauthorized
use of identity information, offences against dignity of a person, cyber
stalking, abetment---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Neither any allegation
of unauthorized use of identity information was mentioned in FIR nor any
question of dignity had been disclosed---FIR was silent about any stalking or still
haunting and neither any watch or spy allegation followed by taking photograph
or making a video had been mentioned in FIR nor any such evidence was brought
on record---Allegedly accused in order to settle his personal grudge and with
the object to avenge the Speaker of Provincial Assembly for his termination and
denial of extension in his service was disclosing sensitive information to
cause injury and harm the dignity of Speaker of Provincial Assembly therefore
the question whether the alleged disclosure would fall within the ambit of
terrorism or was based on personal motive would also require further probe---
Whether the disclosure of co-accused implicating the accused in the case would
be admissible in evidence against the accused in view of Arts. 38 & 39 of
Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 was a question of prime importance in the case,
therefore, accused's case would fall within ambit of further inquiry---Accused
was not required for purpose of investigation---Bail was granted accordingly.
Citation Name: 2017 PCrLJN 233 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE , MUHAMMAD FAHIM UL ISLAM VS State
Ss. 498/497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420 &
109---Electronic Transactions Ordinance (LI of 2002), Ss. 36 & 37-- -Cheating
and dishonestly inducing delivery of property; abetment---Violation of privacy
information; damage to information system---Bail before arrest, refusal
of---Accused had admitted that he had opened the fake Facebook account in
question, in the name of the complainant's daughter---Accused, through said
account, had sent dozens of indecent and threatening massages to the
complainant's daughter---Accused, by way of said massages, had also demanded
naked pictures, and in case of refusal, he had extended dire threats---Forensic
analysis of the digital media, having been taken into possession by the police,
had sufficiently disclosed that the internet connection (used in commission of
the offences) was in the name of father of the accused---Case fell within the
mischief of Ss. 36 & 37 of Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002, which
were non-bailable in nature---Scope of bail before arrest was narrow, and same
became still narrower when such allegations as faced by the accused were backed
by adequate incriminating material---Accused had been found involved in the
case in the Challan submitted before the Trial Court--- High Court observed
that cyber crimes of like nature had fast-gripped the society and misdirected
youth, who went on a rampage without any fear of reprisals---Epidemic, like
such cyber crimes, had to be drastically checked before the same turned
unmanageable---Bail application was dismissed accordingly.
Citation Name: 2016 PLD 318 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE, ADNAN HAFEEZ
VS State, 2003 SCMR 573, 2010 SCMR 1221, PLD 1997 SC 545,
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , Electronic
Transactions Ordinance 2002--36 , Electronic Transactions Ordinance 2002--37 ,
Pakistan Penal Code 1860--109 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--420 ,
S. 497--- Electronic Transactions Ordinance (LI of 2002),
Ss. 36 & 37--- Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420 & 109--- cyber crime,
cheating and abetment---Bail, grant of---Hacking---Recovery of electronic
equipment--- Tampering/destroying of evidence, apprehension of---Accused was
apprehended red-handed from the office of a travel agency where he was
working---From the possession of accused, three laptop computers, mobile phone
and one portable internet device were taken into custody by Federal
Investigation Agency---Laptop computers were sent to Forensic Science
Laboratory from where it was proved that multiple SSL IDs assigned to different
travel agents were found in the recovered laptop computers of the
accused---Effect---Such SSL IDs could only be used by authorized travel agents
but were illegally being accessed by laptops found in possession of accused---
Prosecution had collected substantial evidence connecting accused with
commission of offence---Apprehension existed that if bail was granted to accused
he would tamper with the evidence and even destroy it---Accused was a technical
expert and mastermind of a gang who had been hacking IDs of various travel
agents---Lead to other co-accused would be destroyed if petitioner was allowed
to get in contact with his co- accused and the hectic efforts of Federal
Investigation Agency in tracing out the culprits of such serious scam would
suffer a serious setback---All business dealings and transactions were done
internationally through internet, therefore, cyber crime could not be taken
lightly---High Court observed that legislature should consider enhancing
sentences for such crimes---Bail was refused in circumstances.
Citation Name: 2015 PTD 2401 FEDERAL-TAX-OMBUDSMAN-PAKISTAN,
ALI MANSOOR KHAN VS SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman
Ordinance 2000--10 , Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman
Ordinance 2000--2 , Maladministration--Term ,
Ss. 2(3) & 10(1)---Jurisdiction of the Federal Tax
Ombudsman---Scope--- Maladministration--- Fraudulently prepared
document---Complaint against unauthorized CNIC access and unilateral issuance
of NTN and subsequent amendment therein by the Department--- Contention of
complainant was that the Regional Tax Office (RTO) issued a National Tax Number
(NTN) on his name when he had not submitted any application for the same, and
thereafter modified the same on basis of dubious documents-Validity-Objection
to the Federal Tax Ombudsman's jurisdiction in the matter was misconceived as
the present matter was much more than a simple case of forgery and certain
Departmental functionaries had deliberately violated strict protocols for
issuance of NTN and their motivation was wholly suspect, and such actions were
contrary to the law and attracted provisions of S.2(3) of the Establishment of
the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000, and violation of
prescribed protocols was tantamount to maladministration and placed well within
jurisdiction of the Federal Tax Ombudsman-Federal Tax Ombudsman observed that
circumstances and highly suspect sequence of events, in the present case,
raised many questions and strongly suggested foul play by the PRAL/Department
functionaries and there existed a need that the Department take concrete steps
to ensure that others were spared such harassment and that fraud perpetuated in
the Department due to documents contrived fraudulently, came to an
end---Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that the Department conduct inquiry to
determine as to how and by whom defective. NTN certificate was issued in the
name of the complainant; and devise fool-proof Standard Operating Procedures
with the consultation of the National Response Centre for cyber Crimes (NR3C)
wing of the Federal Investigation Agency to stop use of fraudulently prepared
documents in the PRAL; and devise a policy to validate all NTNs on the PRAL
database through a system of biometric verification-Federal Tax Ombudsman
further recommended that copy of the present complaint and all documents be
forwarded to FIA for initiating criminal investigation into forgery of
complainant's signature---Complaint was disposed of, accordingly.
Citation Name: 2019 PLD 318 SUPREME-COURT , SUO MOTU CASE NO.7 OF 2017 VS
S. 124-A---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.
7---Prevention of electronic crimes Act (XL of 2016), Ss. 11 & 12---
'Edict' or 'fatwa'---Person issuing an edict or fatwa, which harmed another or
put another in harm's way---Such person must be criminally prosecuted under the
Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and/or the Prevention
of electronic crimes Act, 2016.
2019 PLD 318 SUPREME-COURT,
SUO MOTU CASE NO.7 OF 2017
Ss. 20(c) & 27(a)---Prevention of electronic crimes Act
(XL of 2016), Ss. 11 & 12---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 19 & 184(3)
--- Suo motu action regarding Islamabad-Rawalpindi sit-in protest by members of
a religious political party--- Hate speech and incitement to violence spread
through electronic media---Failure of Pakistan electronic Media Regulatory
Authority to fulfil its statutory duty---Leadership of the political party in
question created hatred amongst the people, they abused, threatened and
advocated violence; and this was broadcasted by some private television
channels---Reports of an intelligence agency revealed that a particular TV
channel supported the political party in question and its owners had supplied
food to the protestors---Pakistan electronic Media Regulatory Authority
("the Authority"), however, did not take action under the Pakistan
electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 ('the Ordinance') against
any of its licencees for violating the terms of their licences---Authority
abdicated its statutory duty, a duty which it was legally obliged to
fulfil---Authority also failed to protect the legitimate rights of two of its
licensed broadcasters---Broadcasts by said two licencees were
stopped/interrupted in certain areas of the country; complaints stating this
were acknowledged by the Authority---Authority looked the other way and did
nothing to protect the interests of its licencees nor took action against those
cable operators who were responsible---Hate which was spread and the violence
which was incited through electronic means appeared not to have been investigated,
let alone the violators prosecuted and punished---Supreme Court directed that
broadcasters who broadcasted messages advocating or inciting the commission of
an offence violated the Ordinance and the terms of their licences and must be
proceeded against by the Authority in accordance with the law; that cable
operators who stopped or interrupted the broadcast of licenced broadcasters
must be proceeded against by the Authority in accordance with the Ordinance,
and if this was done on the behest of others then the Authority should report
those so directing the cable operators to the concerned authorities; and that
those spreading messages through electronic means which advocated or incited
the commission of an offence were liable to be prosecuted under the Prevention
of electronic crimes Act, 2016.
Citation Name: 2019 PCrLJ 41 ISLAMABAD, AAMIR SHAMAS VS
State
1991 SCMR 1909, 1999 MLD 2382, 2005 PCr.LJ 657, 2007 SCMR
246, 2008 MLD 312, 2010 YLR 1178, 2013 SCMR
1403, 2016 SCMR 1325,
Ss. 36 & 37--- Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.
426---Hacking of social media account---Suspension of sentence---Short
sentence---Accused was convicted by Trial Court on commission of cyber crime
and was sentenced to imprisonment of 3 years along with fine---Accused sought
suspension of sentence on the plea of short sentence--- Validity---Petitioner
was prima facie charged with offences under Ss. 36 & 37 of electronic
Transactions Ordinance, 2002 as he allegedly hacked Facebook account of
complainant---Accused created two other fake IDs of complainant and started
harassing her by way of fabricating her pictures in loose manner and sent same
to her, her father, relatives and friends which required appreciation to
segregate legal and factual aspects after appreciating evidence during hearing
of main appeal as to whether prosecution had substantiated charges against
accused under law or not---Only one month had lapsed after conviction of
petitioner which did not cross required time frame of six months in cases where
3 years' sentence was awarded---Application was dismissed in circumstances.
Citation Name: 2018 PCrLJ 1133 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE, MUHAMMAD
AYOUB VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Interior,
Islamabad
Arts. 19 & 19-A---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.
295-C---Freedom of speech---Extent---Religious feelings, hurting of---
Grievance of petitioner was that some accounts on social media Facebook were
uploading inflammatory and blasphemous material, which accounts required to be
proceeded against---Validity---Rights of every community were delicately
balanced and freedom of speech/expression and information was also hallmark of
the Constitution---Term 'right of expression' could not be stretched to such an
extent that it could be used as a tool to defy religious thoughts or sacred
personalities of one's religion---Right of expression could be allowed to
thwart feelings of any religion on earth, because as a matter fact distortion
of any religion on the pretext of right of speech /expression or information
amounted to another form of terrorism and such was a fact that international
community must concede---If authorities could not succeed to remove blasphemous
content, as required by the Constitution and other laws applicable in the
country, all such accounts or even the information system involved in pointed
nefarious activities would be blocked at once as undertaken by Director General
Pakistan Telecommunication Authority---High Court directed that a Bill should
be tabled before the Parliament for deliberations and decision about amendment
in S. 37 of Prosecution of electronic crimes Act, 2016 ("PECA") to
authorize PTA to block information system in case service providers failed to
remove blasphemous content; that procedure for right of appeal, revision,
review be provided to the individuals or the system operators whose accounts,
pages or systems were blocked by the authorities; that where in S. 9 of PECA,
punishment for offences relating to terrorism, proscribed organizations, etc.
had been provided, punishment of Ss. 295 to 295-C,
P.P.C. may also be introduced; that rules be framed under
PECA, which were though required, yet had not been framed; that the Government
shall adopt all necessary measures for enhancing technical expertise and
equipments of PTA authorities; and that since the annexures of the present writ
petition carried material which was totally against Islamic faith and belief,
the same could not be made public, as such, the same shall be sealed by the
Deputy Registrar (Judicial), so that no one could have access to it or could
even get its certified copies, except with specific approval of the Court.
Citation Name: 2018 PCrLJ 739 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE, JUNAID
ARSHAD VS State
2016 SCMR 2064, PLD 1994 Lah. 377, PLD 1994 Lahore 377, PLD
2016 SC 171,
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 500, 120(b) &
109---Prevention of electronic crimes Act (XL of 2016), Ss. 4, 16, 20, 21 &
24---Defamation, criminal conspiracy, abetment, unauthorized copying or
transmission of data, unauthorized use of identity information, offences
against dignity of a natural person, offences against modesty of a natural person
and minor, cyber stalking---Pre-arrest bail, recalling of---Allegation against
the accused was that he with the rank of Senior Police Officer, created a fake
facebook profile in complainant's name ( his former wife) and thereby
established digital communication with co-accused on his profile and through
the cyber medium dispatched/uploaded material that included complainant's
graphically explicit images---Accused induced the co-accused to establish
liaison with the complainant, surprised embarrassingly as the images went
viral---Argument that the accused, still struggling to save the bond, could not
conceivably upload graphic images of a lady, though estranged, nonetheless
being mother of his four children, to incur a perennial embarrassment, though
ingeniously articulated, faded into insignificance in the face of formidable
forensic evidence, inexorably pointed upon culpability of accused---Status of
accused as a senior Civil Servant was beside the mark as there were no more
equals in law and the office by itself did not confer respectability---Arrest
in cognizable cases, an essential step towards investigation---Anticipatory
bail was an extraordinary remedy, which could not be claimed in every criminal
case as a substitute for post arrest bail---Accused had not been able to point
out a single circumstance to even obliquely suggest any malice lurking behind
the intended arrest---Ad interim pre-arrest bail granted earlier was recalled
and bail petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Citation Name: 2018 PCrLJ 408 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE, USMAN
BIN MEHMOOD VS State
S. 497---Prevention of electronic crimes Act (XL of 2016),
Ss. 20, 21 & 24---Cyber-crime---Bail, refusal of---Case not falling within
prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr.P.C.---Accused was arrested on allegation that
objectionable material was generated by cell-phone number subscribed by
accused---Plea raised by accused was that he was entitled to concession of bail
as offences Scheduled were non-bailable and did not attract bar contained under
S. 497, Cr.P.C.--- Validity---Held, though bail in offences punishable with
less than ten years of imprisonment was ordinarily granted as a rule, however,
such concession was to be extended having regard to facts and circumstances of
each case---Court, in appropriate cases, could justifiably depart from such
rule to deny the favour---Allegation against accused, supported by technical
evidence was that he, by betraying trust reposed by prosecutrix, exposed her on
internet and shared indecent images not only with her better half but with
others as well---Such was a flagrant intrusion into privacy that had brought a
young lady into perennial embarrassment and ridicule within and outside family
fold---Reference to prosecutrix's volitional intimacy with accused as
contributory factor tantamounted to add insult to injury---High Court declined
to receive plea of petitioner with favour in exercise of discretionary
jurisdiction---Bail application was dismissed in circumstances.
Citation Name: 2018 YLR 329 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH, FARHAN
KAMRANI VS State
S. 20---Offences against dignity of a natural
person---Scope---Section 20 of Prevention of electronic crimes Act, 2016
provided for the punishment for offences of exhibiting, displaying or
transmitting intentionally and publically false information and intimidating or
harming the reputation or privacy of a natural person through any information
system.
Citation Name: 2018 YLR 329 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH, FARHAN
KAMRANI VS State
S. 21---Offences against modesty of a natural person and
minor---Scope---Section 21 of Prevention of electronic crimes Act, 2016
provided for the punishment of offences of intentionally and publically
exhibiting, displaying or transmitting any information by superimposing
photographs of the face of a natural person over any sexually explicit image or
video, including a photograph or a video of natural person in sexually explicit
conduct etc.
Citation Name: 2018 YLR 329 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH, FARHAN KAMRANI VS State
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 419 &
500---Prevention of electronic crimes Act (XL of 2016), S. 21--- Cheating by
personation, defamation, damaging modesty of a natural person---Bail, refusal
of---Complainant had alleged that accused made fake Facebook identity of
complainant and superimposed her photographs onto porn videos/
photographs---Investigating agency's officials found incriminating material
regarding alleged Facebook identity of complainant on personal computer of
accused---Argument of counsel for accused that alleged offence would fall under
S.20 of Prevention of electronic crimes Act, 2016 had no force---Prosecution
had rightly charged the accused with the offence under S.21 of Prevention of electronic
crimes Act, 2016---Although offence under S.21 of Prevention of electronic
crimes Act, 2016 did not fall within prohibitory clause of S.497 yet accused
would not be entitled to concession of bail because he was connected with
offence which seriously affect the whole society---Bail was refused
accordingly.
Citation Name: 2017 PCrLJ 1715 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN,
MUHAMMAD AZAM DAVI VS State
Preamble---Scope and object of---Prevention of electronic
crimes Act, 2016---Act was promulgated with the aim to prevent unauthorized
acts with respect to information system and to provide a mechanism for
investigation, prosecution, trial and international cooperation in respect of
offence relating to electronic crimes.
Citation Name: 2017 PCrLJ 1715 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN,
MUHAMMAD AZAM DAVI VS State
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 109---Prevention of
electronic crimes Act (XL of 2016), Ss. 16(2), 20(1), 24(c) (d)---Unauthorized
use of identity information, offences against dignity of a person, cyber
stalking, abetment---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Neither any allegation
of unauthorized use of identity information was mentioned in FIR nor any
question of dignity had been disclosed---FIR was silent about any stalking or
still haunting and neither any watch or spy allegation followed by taking
photograph or making a video had been mentioned in FIR nor any such evidence
was brought on record---Allegedly accused in order to settle his personal
grudge and with the object to avenge the Speaker of Provincial Assembly for his
termination and denial of extension in his service was disclosing sensitive
information to cause injury and harm the dignity of Speaker of Provincial
Assembly therefore the question whether the alleged disclosure would fall
within the ambit of terrorism or was based on personal motive would also
require further probe--- Whether the disclosure of co-accused implicating the
accused in the case would be admissible in evidence against the accused in view
of Arts. 38 & 39 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 was a question of prime
importance in the case, therefore, accused's case would fall within ambit of
further inquiry---Accused was not required for purpose of investigation---Bail
was granted accordingly.
Citation Name: 2017 PCrLJN 233 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE , MUHAMMAD FAHIM UL ISLAM VS State
Ss. 498/497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420 &
109---electronic Transactions Ordinance (LI of 2002), Ss. 36 & 37-
--Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property;
abetment---Violation of privacy information; damage to information system---Bail
before arrest, refusal of---Accused had admitted that he had opened the fake
Facebook account in question, in the name of the complainant's
daughter---Accused, through said account, had sent dozens of indecent and
threatening massages to the complainant's daughter---Accused, by way of said
massages, had also demanded naked pictures, and in case of refusal, he had
extended dire threats---Forensic analysis of the digital media, having been
taken into possession by the police, had sufficiently disclosed that the
internet connection (used in commission of the offences) was in the name of
father of the accused---Case fell within the mischief of Ss. 36 & 37 of
electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002, which were non-bailable in
nature---Scope of bail before arrest was narrow, and same became still narrower
when such allegations as faced by the accused were backed by adequate
incriminating material---Accused had been found involved in the case in the
Challan submitted before the Trial Court--- High Court observed that cyber
crimes of like nature had fast-gripped the society and misdirected youth, who
went on a rampage without any fear of reprisals---Epidemic, like such cyber
crimes, had to be drastically checked before the same turned
unmanageable---Bail application was dismissed accordingly.
Citation Name: 2016 PLD 318 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE, ADNAN
HAFEEZ VS State
2003 SCMR 573, 2010 SCMR 1221, PLD 1997 SC 545,
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , Electronic
Transactions Ordinance 2002--36 , Electronic Transactions Ordinance 2002--37 ,
Pakistan Penal Code 1860--109 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--420 ,
S. 497--- electronic Transactions Ordinance (LI of 2002),
Ss. 36 & 37--- Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420 & 109--- Cyber crime,
cheating and abetment---Bail, grant of---Hacking---Recovery of electronic
equipment--- Tampering/destroying of evidence, apprehension of---Accused was
apprehended red-handed from the office of a travel agency where he was
working---From the possession of accused, three laptop computers, mobile phone
and one portable internet device were taken into custody by Federal
Investigation Agency---Laptop computers were sent to Forensic Science
Laboratory from where it was proved that multiple SSL IDs assigned to different
travel agents were found in the recovered laptop computers of the
accused---Effect---Such SSL IDs could only be used by authorized travel agents
but were illegally being accessed by laptops found in possession of accused---
Prosecution had collected substantial evidence connecting accused with
commission of offence---Apprehension existed that if bail was granted to
accused he would tamper with the evidence and even destroy it---Accused was a
technical expert and mastermind of a gang who had been hacking IDs of various
travel agents---Lead to other co-accused would be destroyed if petitioner was
allowed to get in contact with his co- accused and the hectic efforts of
Federal Investigation Agency in tracing out the culprits of such serious scam
would suffer a serious setback---All business dealings and transactions were
done internationally through internet, therefore, cyber crime could not be
taken lightly---High Court observed that legislature should consider enhancing
sentences for such crimes---Bail was refused in circumstances.
Citation Name: 2016 PCrLJ 1371 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH, MUHAMMAD
RIZWAN AHMED VS State
2004 SCMR 1859, 2009 PCr.LJ 1192, 2012 SCMR 1732, 2015
PCr.LJ 1772, 2016 P Cr. L J 1371, 2016 SCMR 18, 2016 SCMR 274, PLD 2005 Kar.
128, PLD 2016 Lah. 130,
Anti-Money Laundering Act 2010--3 , Anti-Money Laundering
Act 2010--4 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898-
-497 , Electronic Transactions Ordinance 2002--36 ,
Electronic Transactions Ordinance 2002--37 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--109 ,
Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--420 , Pakistan Penal
Code 1860--468 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--471 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--472
, Pakistan Penal Code 1860--473 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--474 , Pakistan
Penal Code 1860--477-A ,
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 468, 471, 472,
473, 474, 477-A, 109 & 34---electronic Transactions Ordinance (LI of 2002),
Ss. 36 & 37---Anti-Money Laundering Act (VII of 2010), Ss. 3 &
4---Offering, preparing, selling and issuing fake and bogus diplomas, degrees,
certificates and accreditation certificates of fictitious schools, colleges and
universities through fraudulent online system---Bail, refusal of---Case of
prosecution was based on information retrieved from the computers---Alleged
material i.e. fictitious certificates, different stamps and embossing machines
had been recovered from the office wherein accused were working---Accused's
voice recordings and voice transcripts had been secured in the investigation
and had been analyzed by the forensic experts with the samples of their voices
taken in investigation---Investigating agency had no enmity or ill-will against
the accused to falsely implicate them in the present case---Every piece of
evidence was available in Hard Discs Drives and CD---Collection of evidence
through modern devices was relevant and admissible---Authenticity of such
evidence at bail stage could neither be determined nor doubted---Deeper
assessment of alleged material could not be undertaken at bail stage---Accused
had not denied their association with the office charged with selling fake
degrees---White-collar crime had been committed by the people who were computer
savvy---Allegedly information so far retrieved from the computers was so huge
that still the process of decoding and deciphering the same was going on---If
accused were released on bail, they were likely to erode and erase entire information
from the Cloud and main server--- Every crime case had its unique character and
facts and had to be decided in the light of those facts---Bail was not right of
the accused in non-bailable offences--- Accused while asking for concession of
bail was required to show that there was no evidence at all to connect him with
the offence or evidence was such that it required further inquiry into his
guilt---Sufficient material was available on record to connect the accused with
the commission of offence---No case for bail in favour of accused was made
out--- Bail was refused to the accused in circumstances.
Citation Name: 2015 PCrLJ 1406 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE, Syed
MUHAMMAD ASIF VS State
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , Electronic
Transactions Ordinance 2002--2 , Electronic Transactions Ordinance 2002--22 ,
Electronic Transactions Ordinance 2002--36 , Electronic Transactions Ordinance
2002--37 , Electronic Transactions Ordinance 2002--38 , Pakistan Penal Code
1860--109 , Pakistan Telecommunication (Re- Organization) Act 1996--32 ,
S. 497---electronic Transactions Ordinance (LI of 2002),
Ss.2(e), 22, 36, 37 & 38---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.109--- Pakistan
Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act (XVII of 1996), S.32---Violation of
privacy of information, damage to information system, etc.---Bail, grant
of---Raid by Federal Investigation Agency without warrant of search required
under S.32 of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996---Under
S.22 of the electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002, Pakistan Telecommunication
(Re-organization) Act, 1996 was applicable to proceedings under provisions of
electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002---Premises raided by the Federal
Investigation Agency did not belong to accused---Mere presence and collective
confession of accused was very weak type of circumstances to connect the
accused with alleged crime---Assertion of S.109, P.P.C. had diminished the
gravity of offence against accused---Accused could not be connected with
alleged offences at bail stage---Accused was no more required for further
investigation---Offences under Ss.36 and 37 of the electronic Transactions
Ordinance, 2002 having been made punishable with fine independently (alternatively),
case of accused did not fall within prohibitory clause of S.497,
Cr.P.C.---Pre-trial punishment was not intention of law---Detention of accused
was nothing but pre-trial punishment--- Bail petition was allowed.
Citation Name: 2012 PLD 292 SUPREME-COURT , WATAN PARTY VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
Code of Civil Procedure 1908--PREAMBLE , Constitution of
Pakistan 1973--14 , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--184 , Constitution of
Pakistan 1973--187 , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--19 , Constitution of
Pakistan 1973--9 , Order XXXII of Supreme Court Rules--1 , Order XXXII of
Supreme Court Rules--2 ,
Arts. 9, 14, 19, 187 & 184(3)---Supreme Court Rules,
1980, O.XXXII, Rr.1 & 2 read with O.XXXVI---Civil Procedure Code (V of
1908), Preamble---Constitutional petitions invoking original jurisdiction of
Supreme Court, questioning therein the contents of a Memo. published in a
newspaper "Financial Times" London, written by respondent on stated
allegations and that question of public importance involving petitioners'
fundamental rights under the Constitution had been made out as according to the
version of respondent, Memo. was prepared/drafted for the purpose of delivering
the same to the Chairman of U.S. Joint Chief of Staff through former U.S.
National Security Advisor---Maintainability--- Held, petitioners had succeeded
in establishing that the issues involved were justiciable and question of
public importance with regard to enforcement of fundamental rights, prima facie,
under Articles 9, 14 and 19A of the Constitution, had been made out, thus, the
petitions under Article 184(3) of the Constitution were maintainable---To
delineate measures with a view to ensure enforcement of the said fundamental
rights a probe was called for to ascertain the origin, authenticity and purpose
of creating/drafting of Memo. for delivering it to Chairman of the U.S. Joint
Chief of Staff through former U.S. National Security Advisor thus, in exercise
of powers conferred upon the Supreme Court under Article 187 of the
Constitution, Order XXXII, Rules 1 and 2 read with Order XXXVI of the Supreme
Court Rules, 1980 coupled with the principles of Civil Procedure Code, a
Commission was appointed, as the due process of law was the entitlement of all the
stakeholders, therefore, to ensure probe into the matter in a transparent
manner the Commission shall be comprising of (i) Mr. Justice Qazi Faez Isa,
Chief Justice of Balochistan High Court (Chairman); Mr. Justice Iqbal
Hameed-ur-Rehman, Chief Justice, Islamabad High Court (Member) and (iii) Mr.
Justice Mushir Alam, Chief Justice, High Court of Sindh (Member) and Raja
Jawwad Abbas Hassan, District & Sessions Judge, Islamabad, was appointed as
Secretary to the Commission---Commission shall hold its meetings in the
building of Islamabad High Court and shall be exercising all the powers of
Judicial Officers for the purpose of carrying out the object mentioned
hereinabove and it shall be free to avail services of advocates, experts of
forensic science and cyber crimes---All the Federal Secretaries, including
Interior Secretary, Secretary Cabinet, Secretary Foreign Affairs; Chief
Secretaries of all the Provinces; DG, FIA; Inspector Generals of Police of all
the Provinces and Ambassadors of Pakistan in USA and UK, shall provide
necessary assistance to the Commission---Government of Pakistan, through
Secretary Cabinet Division shall provide logistic support to the Commission,
subject to its demands through the Secretary of the Commission--- Commission
shall be authorized to collect evidence within and outside Pakistan according
to prevailing laws on the subject and shall provide full opportunity of hearing
to all the parties---Commission was required to complete the task within a
period of four weeks after receipt hereof---Reply submitted before the Court by
the respondent, inter alia, comprised of certain documents including exchange
of e-mails and other communications using the "BlackBerry Messaging
Service" commonly known as "BBM" between respondent and the then
Ambassador of Pakistan in U.S., who were in constant touch either through BBM,
e-mails or voice calling w.e.f. 9th to 12th May, 2011---Said communications
formed the most important piece of evidence regarding purported contacts
between the two for the purposes of drafting the alleged Memo.---Respondent
also claimed that he had electronic/telephonic interactions with the then
Ambassador in U.S. on October, 28 and November, 1 2011, therefore, in the
interest of justice, it was appropriate to get the confirmation about the
veracity and authenticity of said communications from the original company
based in Canada being the sole and exclusive custodian of such
information---Supreme Court directed the Attorney General for Pakistan, to
contact the said Company through Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs for
getting confirmation about the authenticity of the said electronic
communications exchanged between the two---Such confirmation may be obtained at
the earliest and in order to save and protect the forensic evidence and to
scrutinize the same it should be produced before the Commission---Forensic
evidence was likely to be collected from the company based in Canada,
therefore, the High Commission of Pakistan in Canada was also directed to
cooperate and assist the Commission as well.
Citation Name: 2011 CLC 150 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH, AFAQ
RIAZ AHMED VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN 1993 SCMR 1589,
Constitution of Pakistan 1973--199 , Constitutional
petition--TERM , Electronic Transactions Ordinance 2002--36 , Electronic
Transactions Ordinance 2002--37 , Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-Organization)
Act 1996--31 , PREVENTION OF ELECTRONIC CRIMES ORDINANCE 2007--13 , PREVENTION
OF ELECTRONIC CRIMES ORDINANCE 2007--16 , PREVENTION OF ELECTRONIC CRIMES
ORDINANCE 2007--19 , PREVENTION OF ELECTRONIC CRIMES ORDINANCE 2007--4 ,
PREVENTION OF ELECTRONIC CRIMES ORDINANCE 2007--8 ,
Ss. 4, 8, 13, 16 & 19---Pakistan Telecommunication
(Re-organization) Act (XVII of 1996), S.31(1)---electronic Transaction
Ordinance (LI of 2002), Ss.36 & 37---Constitution of Pakistan,
Art.199---Constitutional petition---Grievance of the petitioners was that
despite the `Prevention of electronic crimes Ordinance, 2007' having lapsed,
they were being proceeded under the said Ordinance---In the present case,
complaint under Ss.4, 8, 9, 13 & 16 of Prevention of electronic crimes
Ordinance, 2007, under S.31(1) of Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization)
Act, 1996 and Ss.36 & 37 of electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002 was
lodged against the petitioners---Prevention of electronic crimes Ordinance,
2007, which was promulgated in 2007, lapsed on expiry of 120 days---Prevention
of electronic crimes Ordinance, 2007 being a temporary law and same having been
lapsed, proceedings under said Ordinance could not be continued in law---To the
extent of the proceedings against the petitioners under the Prevention of
electronic crimes Ordinance, the same was quashed---Petitioners, however, could
be proceeded under other provisions of law as mentioned in the complaint in
accordance with law.
Citation Name: 2011 PCrLJ 1868 ISLAMABAD, JAVED-UR-REHMAN VS
State
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , Electronic
Transactions Ordinance 2002--36 , Electronic Transactions Ordinance 2002--37 ,
Further Inquiry--TERM ,
S. 497(2)---Prevention of electronic crimes Ordinance (VIII
of 2009), Ss.7, 8, 9, 15, 19 & 20---electronic Transactions Ordinance (LI
of 2002), Ss.36 & 37---electronic fraud and forgery, misuse of electronic
system or electronic device, shamming, abet, aid and or attempt to commit
offence etc., violation of privacy of information and damage to information
system etc.---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---No case under Prevention of
electronic crimes Ordinance, 2009 or electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002,
was made out---Allegation against accused was that an e-mail message was sent
to the complainant that he had won lottery and on the basis of a fake letter to
pay 7.5% of the total amount of lottery---Complainant accordingly transferred
certain amounts and an agreement between complainant and two other accused was
executed---Even, if that allegation was accepted, that would not mean that
accused had made illegal access to documents, record or had destroyed the
information system of any service provider---Alleged offence, did not relate to
telecommunication laws; it could be said that it was a case of simple fraud and
misrepresentation--- Accused had not been charged under the relevant sections
of laws---Even under the alleged sections of laws, the whole amount was not
sent to accused and allegation that the amount was actually sent under
misconception, would require evidence---Case of accused, in circumstances, was
one of further inquiry---Accused was released on bail, in circumstances.
Citation Name: 2010 SCMR 1221 SUPREME-COURT, SHAHZAD AHMED
VS THE STATE through F.I.A. Islamabad, 1994 SCMR 1283, 1995 SCMR 1249, PLD 2010
SC 265,
Constitution of Pakistan 1973--185 , Criminal Procedure Code
(Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , Electronic Transactions Ordinance 2002--37 , Pakistan
Penal Code 1860--109 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--420 , Pakistan Penal Code
1860--468 , Prevention of Corruption Act 1947--5 , PREVENTION OF ELECTRONIC
CRIMES ORDINANCE 2007--10 , PREVENTION OF ELECTRONIC CRIMES ORDINANCE 2007--18
, PREVENTION OF ELECTRONIC CRIMES ORDINANCE 2007--19 , PREVENTION OF ELECTRONIC
CRIMES ORDINANCE 2007--3 , PREVENTION OF ELECTRONIC CRIMES ORDINANCE 2007--4 ,
PREVENTION OF ELECTRONIC CRIMES ORDINANCE 2007--5 , PREVENTION OF ELECTRONIC
CRIMES ORDINANCE 2007--6 , PREVENTION OF ELECTRONIC CRIMES ORDINANCE 2007--7 ,
PREVENTION OF ELECTRONIC CRIMES ORDINANCE 2007--8 , PREVENTION OF ELECTRONIC
CRIMES ORDINANCE 2007--9 ,
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860),
Ss.420/468/109---Prevention of Corruption Act, (II of 1947),
S.5(2)---Prevention of electronic crimes Ordinance (LXXII of 2007), Ss.
3/4/5/6/7/8/9/10/18/19---electronic Transactions Ordinance (LI of 2002),
S.37---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Cheating forgery, using as
genuine a forged document abetment and criminal misconduct---Bail, refusal of No work order had been issued to accused by
any competent authority of the Department
Accused had supplied tender items to the Ministry of Interior, prima
facie fraudulently, having misappropriated a huge amount belonging to public
exchequer--- Report submitted by the D.G., F.I.A., had clearly connected the
accused with the commission of the offence, which was duly supported by the
relevant documents and statements--- To grant or refuse bail was discretion of
the courts Both the courts below had
refused to exercise discretion in favour of accused with cogent reasons without
violating the settled principles laid down by Supreme Court---Accused seeking
equity must come to constitutional court with clean hands Conduct of the accused as depicted from the
material on record was a hindrance in exercise of discretion by Supreme Court
in his favour, who apparently was linked with the commission of the crime Principle of consistency would not help the
accused in such circumstances Bail was declined to accused accordingly and
leave to appeal was refused.
Citation Name: 2010 SCMR 855 SUPREME-COURT, Syed
LAKHAT-E-HASNAIN VS State
2006 SCMR 1609,
Constitution of Pakistan 1973--185 , Criminal Procedure Code
(Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947--23 , Foreign
Exchange Regulation Act 1947--4 , Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947--5 ,
Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947--8 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--109 ,
Pakistan Penal Code 1860--409 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--420 , Pakistan Penal
Code 1860--468 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--471 , Prevention of Corruption Act
1947--5 , Prevention of Electronic Crimes Ordinance 2008--4 , Prevention of
Electronic Crimes Ordinance 2008--7 , Prevention of Electronic Crimes Ordinance
2008--8 , Prevention of Electronic Crimes Ordinance 2008--9 , S. 497---Foreign
Exchange Regulation Act (VII of 1947), Ss.4, 5, 8(1)/23---Penal Code (XLV of
1860), Ss.409/420/468/471/109---Prevention of electronic crimes Ordinance (IV
of 2008), Ss.4/7/8/9---Prevention of Corruption Act (11 of 1947),
S.5(2)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Criminal breach of
trust, cheating, forgery and using as genuine a forged document---Bail, refusal
of---Certificate of Chartered Accountant relied upon by the accused to show
that the allegation of a fuzzed foreign exchange had no basis, could not be
relied upon at bail stage before the Supreme Court as the same was neither
produced before the investigating agency nor before the Trial Court or the High
Court and was presented before Supreme Court for the first time---Court at bail
stage had only to see whether accused was connected with the commission of the
crime or not by making only tentative assessment of available evidence---Deeper
appreciation of evidence and circumstances appearing in the case was neither
desirable nor permissible at such stage---Accused were holding a licence from
State Bank of Pakistan to deal with the money exchange business and they had
not only violated Rules and Regulations of State Bank of Pakistan, but
apparently had also acted against the interests of the country by scuffing huge
amounts of foreign exchange---Discretion to grant bail, therefore, could not be
exercised in favour of accused---Bail was declined to accused and leave to
appeal was refused to him accordingly.
Citation Name: 2010 YLR 975 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE, ABDUL
QUDDUS MUGHAL VS MANZOOR AHMED WATTOO, MINISTER FOR INDUSTRIES AND PRODUCTION,
ISLAMABAD, 1975 SCMR 80, 2002 SCMR 1623, PLD 1998 SC 823,
Constitution of Pakistan 1973--204 , Contempt of Court
Ordinance 2003--3 , Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003--4 , Art.204---Contempt of
Court Ordinance (IV of 2003), Ss.3/4---Contempt of Court--High Court had passed
a judgment directory to maintain the ex mill price and retail price of sugar at
the rate of Rs.36 per kg and Rs.40 per kg. respectively-
--Respondents had refused to accept and implement the said
order speaking in a contemptuous manner and passing the remarks that High Court
could implement the order itself and they were not ready to do so---Such
alleged derogatory remarks about the order had flashed in electronic as well as
print. media---Contemptuous statement was that High Court should itself
implement the decision, and that Federal Government had no
"Tehsildars" and "Thanedars" to implement the
same---Respondent Minister for Industries and Production, Government of
Pakistan, had denied to have uttered the said words placing reliance on the
Minutes of the Meeting of the Standing Committee issued by the National
Assembly Secretariat, which contained his statement---Said statement of the
respondent revealed that there were no derogatory remarks, but he had uttered
the strategy for implementing the decision of the High Court and the problems
being faced by the Government---Fair comments about the general working of the
court made in good faith in the public interest and in temperate language and
fair comments on the merits of a decision of a court made after the pendency of
the proceedings in a case in good faith and in temperate language without
impugning the integrity or impartiality of the Judge, would not amount to
commission of contempt of court---Jurisdiction of the court in contempt matters
would be invoked if it was found that there was real prejudice, which could be
regarded as substantial interference with the due course of justice Marked distinction existed between a prepared
speech and a press talk, inasmuch as in the former a person could prepare his
speech after serious deliberations and taking into consideration the pros and
cons of the matters, whereas in the latter case he had to face many unexpected
questions of which he might have no prior idea---During the press talks the
press reporters would skillfully extract statements, which the persons
concerned might have no intention to make
Said distinction was important for the purpose of deciding the question
that whether the alleged contemner had acted bona fide or mala fide or with
malice Committal for contempt of court
is a weapon to be used sparingly and always with reference to the interest of
administration of justice Press clippings
per se were not admissible in evidence and no list of witnesses had been placed
on record by the petitioner to prove the same---Accused in his reply to the
show-cause notice had categorically denied the correctness of the statements
allegedly made by him---Accused had been regularly appearing before High Court
and never shown disrespect to the court---Words used by the accused were not
found to be contemptuous Press clippings
alone were not sufficient to connect the accused with the commission of the
crime Where two views on the same
evidence were plausibly possible, the one favouring the person standing the
trial would be preferred over the one against him, which could not be pressed
into service in contempt proceedings, as the same were sui generic in nature
partaking of same elements of both civil and criminal proceedings Accused was not found guilty of contempt of
court and show-cause notice issued to him was withdrawn accordingly.
Citation Name: 2010 PLD 270 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE, ZAKI
UR REHMAN LAKHWI VS Malik MUHAMMAD AKRAM AWAN 1984 PCr.LJ 3002, 1985 PCr.LJ
929, 1986 PCr.LJ 1684, 1992 PCr.LJ 1795, 1999 SCMR 1744, 2006 PCr.LJ 174, 2009 PCr.LJ
36,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--11-F , Anti-Terrorism Act
1997--11-J , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--11-N , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997-
-11-V , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--21-C , Anti-Terrorism Act
1997--21 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--199 ,
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--164 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C)
1898--512 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--540-A , Foreigners Act
1946--14 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--109 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 ,
Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 , Passports Act 1974--6 , PREVENTION OF ELECTRONIC
CRIMES ORDINANCE 2007--11 , PREVENTION OF ELECTRONIC CRIMES ORDINANCE 2007--17
, PREVENTION OF ELECTRONIC CRIMES ORDINANCE 2007--19 , Qanun-e-Shahadat Order
1984--43 ,
Ss. 7/11-F(5)(6)/11-J/11-N/11-V/21/21-C---Penal Code (XLV of
1860), Ss.302/34/109---Prevention of electronic crimes Ordinance (IV of 2008),
Ss.11/17/19---Passports Act (XX of 1974), S.6---Foreigners Act (XXXI of 1946),
S.14---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.164, 540-A &
512---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.43---Constitution of Pakistan (1973),
Art.199---Terrorism, Qatl-e-amd, abetment offence relating to
passport---Constitutional petition---Quashing of order---Principal accused was
reportedly arrested in India as a result of terrorist attack and on the basis
of his statement recorded there under S.164, Cr.P.C. before a Magistrate,
present accused and his co-accused had been arrested in the case after an
inquiry conducted in Pakistan---In none of three successive interim challans
submitted by the prosecution in the Trial Court the principal accused was shown
as an accused person or as an absconder--- Application moved by the present
accused under S.265-K, Cr.P.C. for acquittal had been dismissed by the Trial Court
by impugned order---Validity---Confessional statement of an accused could be
used against his co-accused in the same case, but until and unless a person was
shown as accused therein, his statement could not be used against his co-
accused, which was the pre-condition under Art.43 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat,
1984---Contention that principal accused was not shown as an accused in S.173,
Cr.P.C. report and by mere mentioning his name in the F.I.R., and on the basis
of his alleged confessional statement before a Magistrate in India, he could
not be given a status of co-accused of the present accused seemed to be
technically sound---Trial Court while applying S.540-A(2), Cr.P.C. had exempted
the appearance of principal accused and his co-accused and separated their case
from the case of present accused and proceeded further by framing the
charge---Principal accused had been taken by Trial Court as an accused in the
case--
-Absconder or a person who never appeared before the court
to face trial, his case was not covered under S.540-A(2),
Cr.P.C.---Without having enforced the attendance of accused
under Arts. 87 and 88, Cr.P.C. and proceeding under S.512, Cr.P.C.; separation
of the trial was not lawful---Presence of accused before the court for
application of S.540-A, Cr.P.C. was necessary and if subsequently he became
incapable of remaining before the court, then he might apply for dispensation
of his attendance and court might pass an appropriate order---Procedure adopted
by Trial Court while applying S.540-A(2), Cr.P.C. for separation of the trial
of alleged principal accused, therefore, was totally illegal and to that extent
the impugned order was set aside---As regards the dismissal of the application
of accused under S.265-K, Cr.P.C., Trial Court had framed the charge while
applying judicial mind and trial had commenced---At such stage it was not
appropriate for High Court to go into deeper appreciation of evidence in
exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction or to discuss the merits or
demerits of the case---Contention about the admissibility of the aforesaid
statement of the principal accused and other material available on record,
would be seen by Trial Court after recording some relevant evidence---Since
after framing of the charge no evidence had been recorded in the case,
application under S.265-K, Cr.P.C. at that stage was not maintainable and the
same had rightly been dismissed by Trial Court and the impugned order to that
extent was upheld---Accused could move such application before Trial Court at
proper stage after recording of evidence---Constitutional petition was disposed
of accordingly.
Citation Name: 2010 PCrLJ 67 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE, Syed
LAKHAT-E-HUSSAIN VS State
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , Federal
Investigation Agency Act 1974--4 , Federal Investigation Agency Act 1974--5 ,
Federal Investigation Agency Act 1974--8 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--109 ,
Pakistan Penal Code 1860-
-409 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--420 , Pakistan Penal Code
1860--468 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--471 , PREVENTION OF ELECTRONIC CRIMES
ORDINANCE 2007--4 , PREVENTION OF ELECTRONIC CRIMES ORDINANCE 2007--7 ,
PREVENTION OF ELECTRONIC CRIMES ORDINANCE 2007--8 , PREVENTION OF ELECTRONIC
CRIMES ORDINANCE 2007--9 ,
S. 497---Penal Code (XL V of 1860), Ss.409, 420, 468, 471
& 109---Federal Investigating Agency Act, 1974 (VIII of 1975), Ss.4, 5,
8(1) & 23---Prevention of electronic crimes Ordinance (LXXII of 2007),
Ss.4, 7, 8 & 9---Bail, refusal of-- -Cheating and embezzlement---
Beneficiary of fraud---Dual record, maintaining of---Accused was chief
executive of a company licensed to deal in foreign currency exchange and home
remittances---Accused through his company, had been receiving amounts for transfer
to foreign countries transactions but neither remitted the amounts to foreign
destinations nor returned the same to depositors---Accused under the garb of
lawful business of foreign exchange master minded of fun for making money by
adopting fraudulent and corrupt means---Accused could not shift his liability
on the employees of his company because he appeared to be the sole
beneficiary---Evidence was available on record that accused had been himself
conducting the affairs of company---Accused himself instructed his employees to
prepare two records, which transaction was to go in which record and how to
deal with customers of the company--- Accused and his company had been doing
such business since 2003, and from its inception, such-like fake and forged
transactions were being made---Number of affectees. against accused were in
thousands and Federal Investigating Agency made a rough estimate of
misappropriated amount of Rs.45 Billion---Accused being leader of whole
campaign was not entitled to concession of bail, which was a remedy for persons
who were innocent and were involved in cases with mala fide
intention---Petition was dismissed in circumstance.
Citation Name: 2010 YLR 1822 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH, MUHAMMAD
HANIF S. KALIA VS State
1971 SCMR 686, 2005 MLD 1127,
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , PREVENTION OF
ELECTRONIC CRIMES ORDINANCE 2007--23 , PREVENTION OF ELECTRONIC CRIMES
ORDINANCE 2007--25 , PREVENTION OF ELECTRONIC CRIMES ORDINANCE 2007--31 ,
PREVENTION OF ELECTRONIC CRIMES ORDINANCE 2007--45 , PREVENTION OF ELECTRONIC
CRIMES ORDINANCE 2007--7 , PREVENTION OF ELECTRONIC CRIMES ORDINANCE 2007--8 ,
S. 497---Prevention of electronic crimes Ordinance (LXXII of
2007), Ss.7, 8, 23, 25, 31 & 45---Illegal transfer of money and misuse of
foreign exchange---Bail, grant of---Cases against accused persons were
registered under Prevention of electronic crimes Ordinance, 2007 and the
Sessions Judge having no jurisdiction to take cognizance of offences under said
Ordinance, Sessions Judge was directed to send the case to a court of
Magistrate First Class competent to try the offence under Second Schedule to
the Criminal Procedure Code---Magistrate would decide whether to take
cognizance or not and thereafter proceed in accordance with law---Bail
applications having been filed in the court of Sessions Judge who was not
competent to try the offence; said applications would be deemed to be pending;
and the Magistrate would hear and decide those applications as expeditiously as
possible.
Citation Name: 2009 PLD 254 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE, ALAMGIR
KHALID CHUGHTAI VS State
Electronic Transactions Ordinance 2002--29 , Electronic
Transactions Ordinance 2002--3 , Electronic Transactions Ordinance 2002--5 , Qanun-e-Shahadat
Order 1984--2 , Ss. 3, 5, 29 & Sched.-II---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984),
Art.2(e) [as amended]---electronically generated evidence--
-Admissibility---Scope---Cyber crime has become rampant in
society and that is the reason legislature in its wisdom has provided a
different criterion about admissibility of evidence in such cases as without
any wire one can have facility of connection all over world as whole business
of world is going on through inter-net, E-mail---Due to development in science
and technology, it is not possible to bring on record physical existence of
every-thing as whole technology is based on satellite operational net works---Legislature
has amended provisions of Art.2(e) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, in terms of S.29
of electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002, and various changes have been made
in definition clause---All documents prepared, produced or generated through modern
devices are admissible in evidence.
Citation Name: 2009 PLD 254 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE, ALAMGIR
KHALID CHUGHTAI VS State
Electronic Transactions Ordinance 2002--29 , Electronic
Transactions Ordinance 2002--3 , Electronic Transactions Ordinance 2002--36 ,
Electronic Transactions Ordinance 2002--37 , Electronic Transactions Ordinance
2002--5 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--109 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--420 ,
Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-Organization) Act 1996--31 , Qanun-e-Shahadat
Order 1984--73 , Reappraisal of evidence--TERM ,
Ss.3, 5, 29, 36, 37 & Sched.-II---Pakistan
Telecommunication (Re-Organization) Act (XVII of 1996), S.31---Penal Code (XLV
of 1860), Ss.420/109---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.73---Reappraisal of
evidence---electronically generated evidence---Admissibility---Primary
evidence---Scope---Report prepared by staff of Pakistan Telecommunication
Corporation Limited---Worth and effect---On the allegation of operating illegal
International Voice Traffic Transmission (gateway), accused was convicted and
sentenced by Trial Court---Plea raised by accused was that documents produced
by prosecution in evidence were computer generated, which were not proved in
accordance with the provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Validity---It was
only relevant technical staff who could analyze working of electronic articles
and such facility was available with Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation
Limited---Report prepared by staff of Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation
Limited was admissible as a primary evidence as legislature, keeping in view
the intricacy of crime, had made major changes in Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, as
provided in
S.29 and Schedule-II of electronic Transactions Ordinance,
2002---Extensive changes were brought by legislature in Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984,
through Second Schedule of electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002, to meet
with situations---electronically gathered evidence was to be treated as primary
evidence, so documents tendered in evidence were admissible' and duly proved
and there was nothing on record which could show that narration-therein was
altered---Such was a case of cyber crime wherein latest technology was used
whereby whole operational system of State was by-passed---Advance and most
revenue generating department of State was set at naught by accused with
illegal installations---Prosecution having successfully proved its case against
accused beyond any shadow of doubt, High Court maintained conviction and
sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court---Appeal was dismissed in
circumstances.
Citation Name: 2009 PCrLJ 1192 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH, MUHAMMAD
HANIF S. KALIA VS State
1978 SCMR 69, 1986 CLC 1165, 1990 PCr.LJ 577, 1992 MLD 880,
1993 SCMR 1321, 1995 MLD 1635, 1995 SCMR 1249, 1995 SCMR 387, 1997 SCMR 1836,
1998 PCr.LJ 633, 1999 PCr.LJ 128, 1999 PCr.LJ 1352, 2001 PCr.LJ 1766, 2001 YLR
2849, 2002 SCMR 1886, 2002 SCMR 282, 2003 MLD 676, 2003 PCr.LJ 1754, 2003 YLR
2700, 2004 PCr.LJ 1080, 2004 SCMR 229, 2004 YLR 400, 2005 PCr.LJ 22, 2005
PCr.LJ 244, 2005 PCr.LJ 988, 2005 SCMR 1166, 2005 YLR 1220, 2006 PCr.LJ 1886,
2006 SCMR 66, 2008 PCr.LJ 1360, 2008 SCMR 572, PLD 1972 SC 81, PLD 1992 SC 353,
PLD 1995 SC 34, PLD 1996 Lah. 286, PLD 2003 Kar. 526, PLD 2003 SC 668, PLD 2004
Kara 617, PLD 2006 Kar. 472,
Criminal Procedure
Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--497 , Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947--22 , Foreign
Exchange Regulation Act 1947--23 , Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947--5 , Foreign
Exchange Regulation Act 1947--8 , Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts)
Ordinance 1984--2 , Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance
1984--5 , Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance
1984--PREAMBLE , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--420 ,
Pakistan Penal Code 1860--467 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--471 , Pakistan Penal
Code 1860--477-A , PREVENTION OF ELECTRONIC CRIMES ORDINANCE 2007--20 ,
PREVENTION OF ELECTRONIC CRIMES ORDINANCE 2007--7 , PREVENTION OF ELECTRONIC
CRIMES ORDINANCE 2007--8 ,
S. 497---Foreign
Exchange Regulation Act (VII of 1947), Ss.5, 8, 22 & 23---Prevention of
electronic crimes Ordinance (LXXII of 2007), Ss.7, 8 & 20---Penal Code (XLV
of 1860), Ss.420, 467, 471, 477-A & 34---Offences in Respect of Banks
(Special Courts) Ordinance (IX of 1984), Preamble, Ss.2(d) & 5(6)---Bail,
refusal of---Case against applicants, who were Directors/share-holders in a
Foreign Exchange Company, was that they had set up an illegal parallel website,
which enabled them to illegally and secretly engage in unreported forex and
Hawala Trading, by said mechanism of the applicants there was no physical
transfer of any forex from Pakistan and that as a result of said illegal
forex/Hawala Trading the applicants had breached and/or violated the rules and
regulations of the State Bank of Pakistan, the terms of their license and also
other laws such as Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947; Prevention of
electronic crimes Ordinance, 2007 and Penal Code, 1860 which had the result of
depriving the national exchequer of huge amounts of forex which it would have
earned in the shape of commission had the transactions been carried out through
regular State Bank of Pakistan channels---Inquiry had been initiated on a
complaint made by the State Bank of Pakistan--- Matter was directly connected
to offences committed in respect of banks and triable under Offences in Respect
of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984---Offence being a white collar crime
it was not unusual that most of the evidence was of documentary nature and for
High Court to rule upon the admissibility of documents prior to the trial would
amount to usurping the right of the Trial Court to try the case under the
appropriate laws of procedure and evidence as laid down in Cr.P.C. and the
Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Court, in bail application, was only entitled to make
brief review of the case file in order to determine whether prima facie case
had been made. out and not to look into such details as the admissibility of
documents, the manner of the seizure etc. which were all matters which were to
be properly adjudicated upon by the Trial Court at first instance when
prosecution sought to admit the documents in evidence---Some accused, in the
present case, had already been granted bail and on that basis the applicants
claimed to be entitled to bail on the rule of consistency---Each case, however,
would turn on its own particular facts and circumstances and applicants' case
was distinguishable from the other accused---Role and level of participation in
crime between the applicants and accused who had been granted bail, therefore,
stood on entirely different footing, as such rule of consistency was not
applicable in the case--Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts)
Ordinance, 1984 being applicable, the offences became non-bailable for which
the requirements of S.497(2), proviso, Cr.P.C. needed to be satisfied---No hard
and fast rule existed on the issue of matter being of further inquiry and mere
possibility of further inquiry existed in nearly all bail-related
cases--Prosecution, in circumstances, had been able to establish a nexus
between the applicants and the illegal parallel website which was allegedly
used in order to carryout forex scam and had thus made out a prima facie case
against the applicants---Case of applicants, therefore, was not that of further
inquiry and allegations against the applicants based on the documents on the
file of Special Court were certainly not groundless---Case of applicants could
be regarded as one of heinous nature as it not only involved huge sums of money
but such offences, if proven, were against the interest of society and in such
circumstances bail had been denied even in bailable offences---Case of
applicants, though was not a corruption case, it nevertheless deprived the
State Bank of Pakistan and the country of potentially millions of US
Dollars---Case of applicants was that of serious allegations of fraud and
forgery---Where the offence was non-bailable the court needed to be more
cautious in granting bail`--Bail, in the present case, was not being denied as
a punishment---White collar crime on the scale and sophistication as were
taking today would not have been contemplated by the authors of Foreign
Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, the law must evolve to meet the needs of an ever
changing and developing society---Maximum sentence in Foreign Exchange
Regulation Act, 1947, therefore, could not be considered a yardstick for
granting bail---Applicants having contacts abroad, were wealthy and influential
persons, faced with gravity of such charges and evidence they might also be
inclined to abscond---High Court observed that it would be premature to
interfere, at this stage, with the impugned order---Prosecution having made out
a prima facie case against the applicants the bail was declined to all the
applicants-High Court further observed that applicants had already spent about
eight months in custody and they had a concern that since the present case
involved a large number of documents the trial might take long time to
complete, since the trial was being proceeded with under Offences in Respect of
Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984, which, in its Preamble stipulates for
speedy trial, it was expected in any event, that the trial be proceeded with
expeditiously--- High Court directed that Trial Court should at the earliest
opportunity deal with the question of admissibility of documents and to
complete the trial of the applicants within six months from the date of present
order of the High Court.
- #CyberCrimePrecedents
- #CyberLawCases
- #CyberCrimeCaseStudies
- #CyberCrimeLegalPrecedents
- #CyberSecurityCaseLaw
- #DigitalCrimePrecedents
- #CyberCrimeProsecutions
- #CyberCrimeDefenseCases
- #CyberFraudPrecedents
- #CyberCrimeInvestigations
