HAMZA KHALID vs State S — 2024 PCrLJ 422 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

HAMZA KHALID VS State S. 5(5)---Seizure of assets---Remedy against---Proceedings under S. 5(5) of Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974, are subject to confirmation by Court of competent jurisdiction---Any person aggrieved by such proceedings may seek redress before that court---If officer concerned of Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) is found to have committed any misconduct, legal action can be initiated against such officer under the relevant laws and he may also face disciplinary action within his department. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 422 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE HAMZA KHALID VS State S. 5(5)---Seizure of case property---Power, exercise of---Scope---Powers granted by S. 5(5) of Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974, are applicable exclusively during investigation and do not extend to inquiry stage---Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) is empowered to invoke S. 5(5) of Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974, in urgent situations where officer is genuinely of the opinion that property which is subject matter of investigation is likely to be removed, transferred, or otherwise disposed of before an order for its seizure is obtained from appropriate authority---Officer claiming authority under S. 5(5) of Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974, does not have unfettered powers who has to act in good faith and refrain from arbitrary actions---There must be circumstances justifying necessity for swift intervention---Property sought to be seized should have a nexus with investigation of alleged offence---To assert jurisdiction under S. 5(5) of Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974, officer concerned must document the facts and reasons in the case diary (to the extent possible), laying foundation for his decision/ opinion. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 422 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE HAMZA KHALID VS State art. 18---Facts in issue and relevant facts, evidence of--- Evidence obtained illegally---Scope---according to art. 18 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, criterion is whether the evidence is relevant to facts in issue---Unless there is an express or necessarily implied prohibition in the Constitution or other laws, evidence obtained through illegal search or seizure is not liable to be excluded---Ordinarily, the same principle applies in both civil and criminal proceedings. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 422 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE HAMZA KHALID VS State S. 5---Inquiry and investigation---Distinction---Legislature has used two terms in S. 5 of Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974 i.e. "inquiry" and "investigation", without providing specific definition---While both these terms are commonly considered interchangeable, they carry distinct meanings in the legal context--- Inquiry can be termed as the first step towards investigation. Citation Name: 2024 PCrLJ 422 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE HAMZA KHALID VS State Ss. 497 & 103---Emigration Ordinance (XVIII of 1979), S. 18---Passports Act (XX of 1974), S. 6---Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974 (VIII of 1975), S. 5(5)---Human trafficking and forging of documents---Bail, refusal of---Habitual offender---Previous convict---Raid and search---Official witnesses---Accused was arrested for human trafficking while preparing counterfeit documents---Plea raised by accused was that Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) raided house of accused without search and seizure warrant and no public witness was associated with the proceedings---Validity---Accused did not dispute FIA's jurisdiction over offences under Passports Act, 1974 and Emigration Ordinance, 1979---Raid conducted at around 3:30 a.m. was based on source information---No court was available at that time to which officials could have applied for a search warrant---Considering the urgency involved, any procedural irregularities or illegalities in the process should be condoned, especially when accused did not allege any malice on the part of officials---Accused could demonstrate during trial if actions caused him any prejudice---There was no violation of S. 103, Cr.P.C. while conducting the raid, as police witnesses were as good as any other witness from the general public unless they had any animosity towards the accused and had motive to implicate him falsely---Federal Investigation Agency team apprehended the accused on the spot with fake foreign passports, foreign driving licences, computers, printers, scanners and other machines, counterfeit stamps, visa stickers, monograms and other articles---Ingredients of offences under S. 18 of Emigration Ordinance, 1979, and S. 6 of Passports Act, 1974 were satisfied---Provision of S. 18 of Emigration Ordinance, 1979, fell within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Accused was previously convicted in another case for same offence and was sentenced to imprisonment and fine, who had repeated the offence---Bail was refused, in circumstances.

HAMZA KHALID vs State S — 2024 PCrLJ 422 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PCRLJ