MUHAMMAD ARIF vs TASNEEM FATIMA Ss — 2022 PCrLJN 13 ISLAMABAD

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MUHAMMAD ARIF VS TASNEEM FATIMA Ss. 420, 468, 406, 489-F & 109---Passports Act (XX of 1974), S. 6---Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery for purpose of cheating, criminal breach of trust, dishonestly issuing a cheque, abetment, offence relating to passport---Appreciation of evidence---Appeal against acquittal---Jurisdiction of Federal Investigating Agency (FIA)---Scope---Prosecution case was that the accused fraudulently received huge amount from the complainant along with passports of 44 persons for sending them to perform Hajj, but she did not fulfil her obligation---Accused issued different cheques to the complainant for repayment of the amount received by her, but the same were dishonoured when presented for encashment---Accused was a private person---Neither, accused was employee of the Federal Government Organization nor had any concern directly or indirectly with any of the Federal Government Departments, therefore, she could not be held liable to be tried or investigated by the FIA---Complainant though had claimed that the accused met them in the office of Ministry of Religious Affairs but no proof in that behalf was placed on record---Investigating Officer admitted in cross-examination that he had not inquired from the concerned Ministry as to the employment of the accused over there---Jurisdiction of FIA was restricted only to the Federal Government employees as provided in S. 21 of the P.P.C.---Nothing on record to suggest that the accused had made any transaction in the capacity of Government servant or the complaint's issue was in any way concerned with the affairs of the Federal Government, instead that was a private arrangement between the parties---Jurisdiction of FIA was not made out---In view of such legal position, the Trial Court was right in acquitting the accused from the offence under S. 489-F, P.P.C., as FIA had no authority to register the case against a private person---Stance was taken by the complainant as well as by witness that the accused posed herself to be an employee/Private Secretary to the Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs, but that was not put to her in her statement recorded under S. 342, Cr.P.C.---Circumstances established that the appeal had no force, thus was dismissed accordingly.

MUHAMMAD ARIF vs TASNEEM FATIMA Ss — 2022 PCrLJN 13 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported