- Single-member LHC bench rejects claim that foreign FIR bars local prosecution
LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) has declared that if a person commits an offence in a foreign country, which is also an offence under the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), they may be tried and convicted in Pakistan as if the crime had occurred within the country.
LHC’s Justice Tanveer Ahmad Sheikh made observation while dismissing the accused’s counsel’s objection that since a crime report had already been registered in Oman, a second crime report in Pakistan was impermissible.
In its order, the court ruled that an individual who commits a crime abroad can still be prosecuted in Pakistan.
Subsequently, the court withdrew the ad-interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioner and dismissed his bail plea.
The court further observed that since the case against the petitioner was still at an early stage of investigation in Oman, he could not seek protection under Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
The court upheld the legality of the inquiry, investigation, arrest and trial in Pakistan, rejecting the petitioner’s counsel’s objection as baseless.
The case involves petitioner Muhammad Irshad, who sought pre-arrest bail in connection with an FIR registered on January 3, 2023, under Sections 406 and 408 of the PPC at the Federal Investigation Circle, Gujranwala.
According to the FIR, an inquiry by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) in Gujranwala was initiated after a complaint was forwarded by the Embassy of Pakistan in Oman.
The complainant, Zulfiqar Ahmad, son of Ehsan Elahi, stated that he had been running a jewelry business in Muscat since 1992 under the company name “Anwer Jewelry LLC”.
The accused, Muhammad Irshad, son of Muhammad Latif, was employed as a driver in his company for the past four years.
On June 16, 2022, the complainant entrusted Irshad with 26,300 Omani Riyals to collect gold from Mutrah, along with a diamond ring worth 600 Omani Riyals and a bank card with a balance of 923 Omani Riyals.
Instead of completing the transaction, Irshad allegedly transferred the embezzled amount of Rs1,793,504 from Muscat into two Pakistani bank accounts – one belonging to his wife, Shamim Akher, and another in his own name.
The next day, on June 17, 2022, Irshad arrived in Pakistan from Muscat on flight PK-288. He later deposited Rs1,500,000 from the embezzled funds into his own bank account. The FIA inquiry found him involved in the alleged crime.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that Irshad was innocent and had been falsely implicated by the complainant for ulterior motives.
He further contended that the FIR was registered after an unreasonable delay without justification, a crime report had already been filed in Oman, making a second report in Pakistan an instance of double jeopardy and rendering the FIR liable for quashing.
It stated that the FIA unlawfully froze the petitioner’s bank account, no official entrustment had been made to Irshad, and the charges did not meet the legal criteria for the alleged offences.
He also maintained that the petitioner, being a law-abiding citizen, was at risk of undue harm if arrested.
However, the court ruled that the evidence on record clearly implicated the petitioner. It noted that after committing embezzlement in Oman, he immediately transferred funds to bank accounts in Pakistan, including his wife’s account.
The court noted that Irshad, as an employee, was entrusted with cash, a diamond ring, and a bank card, which he misappropriated for personal use, constituting a breach of trust under Section 405 of the PPC.
The documentary evidence collected during the investigation firmly connected him to the alleged crime, and he failed to refute his involvement.
The court found no indication of malicious intent on the complainant’s part to falsely implicate him.
Given these circumstances, the LHC ruled that extraordinary relief, reserved for innocent individuals, could not be granted to the petitioner.
