Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

P L D 2026 Islamabad 135 Before Saman Rafat Imtiaz, J AMIR MUHAMMAD and others ---Petitioners Versus The STATE and another ---Respondents Criminal Revisions Nos. 66, 67, 68 and 69 of 2025, decided on 12th December, 2025. (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 409---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)---Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act (XL of 1958), Ss. 4 & 5---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 179, 181 (2) & 439---Criminal breach of trust---Place of trial---Principle---Accused persons were public servants who were alleged to have issued illegal Computerized National Identity Cards and passports to foreign nations at place Q ---Case was investigated at place I and Special Court at place I had also assumed the jurisdiction---Validity---Offence of criminal breach of trust can be tried by the Court within whose local limits of jurisdiction the offence is committed by a public servant as well as the Court where any part of the property which is the subject of the offence is received or retained by accused persons---Offence of criminal breach of trust allegedly committed by accused persons as public servants occurred in another province, whereas there was no allegation that the accused persons received or retained in place I any part of the property which was subject of alleged offence---Special Judge at place I could not try accused persons for the offence under S.409, P.P.C. unless he could try them for any of the other alleged offences by virtue of S.5 (7) of Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1958---Special Judge at place I did not have territorial jurisdiction to try the case registered against accused persons---High Court set aside the orders passed by Special Judge and applications filed under S.4 of Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1958 read with S.177, Cr.P.C. were allowed---High Court directed the Special Judge to return FIRs and challans submitted by FIA to the prosecution or concerned investigating officer for the purpose of submission before Court of competent jurisdiction---Revision was allowed in circumstances.

Rao Fahd Ali Khan v. The State and another 2014 PCr.LJ 1071; Faqir Khan v. Bakhtawar Jan and 4 others 2019 PCr.LJ 1558; Mazhar Hussain v. The State and 2 others PLD 2010 Lah. 60; Total Parco Pakistan Limited through Authorized Officer v. Justice of Peace/Additional Sessions Judge (West), Islamabad and 2 others 2021 YLR 1436; Faqir Khan v. Bakhtawar Jan and 4 others 2019 PCr.LJ 1558; Basharat Iqbal v. The State and another 1993 SCMR 1901; Muhammad Sultan v. Muhammad Raza and others 2020 SCMR 1200; Mirza Ali Khan v. Sessions Judge, Peshawar, 2002 SCMR 1461; Abdul Sattar Baig v. The State 2014 PCr.LJ 983; Riasat Ali v. The State 2024 PCr.LJ 1511; Muhammad Aslam v. The State PLD 1962 Sindh 499; Abdullah v. Raja Muhammad Hashim PLD 1962 Kar. 793; Ghulam Murtaza Khan v. Abdul Rahman 1980 PCr.LJ 594; Muhammad Younas Malik v. Drug Court of Sindh 1987 MLD 1619; K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and others AIR 1999 SC 3762; Chowdhry Riaz Ahmed v. The State PLD 1979 Sindh 119; Muhammad Ehsan Khan v. The State 1968 PCr.LJ 759; Shoukat Ali v. Muhammad Ismail 2022 PCr.LJ.N. 60; Abdul Aziz Fazlani v. Abdul Razzaq 2022 YLR Note 199; R.K. Vijayasarathy v. Sudha Seetharam 2019 INSC 216; Muhammad Rashid v. The State PLD 1960 SC 168; Makhdoom Ahmed alias Zameer Ahmad v. Noor Ahmed 2003 YLR 2335; Ishwarlal Girdharilal Parekh v. State of Maharashtra 1969 PTD 904; Syed Fayyaz Hussain Zaidi v. S.H.O. Police Station Chehliyak, Multan 2004 MLD 1403 and Muhammad Salah-ud-Din v. NADRA PLD 2012 Lah. 378 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 419 & 420---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 179---Cheating---Place of trial---Principle---Accused persons were alleged to have issued illegal Computerized National Identity Cards and passports to foreign nations at place Q ---Case was investigated at place I and Special Court at place I had also assumed the jurisdiction as cards and passports were printed at place I ---Validity---Printing was to do with creation of the property, which was delivered by the person deceived as a consequence of the deception and such creation was not an ingredient of the offences under Ss.419 and 420, P.P.C.---It was inconsequential where printing of CNICs took place for the purpose of S.179, Cr.P.C.---Printing of CNICs was at the best a mere result of alleged approval granted by accused persons (which might be practically necessary for the consequences of alleged offences to ensue) but was not an essential ingredient for the completion of offences under S.419 or 420, P.P.C. by definition whereas S.179, Cr.P.C. applied to those offences which by their very definition consisted of an act and its consequences. Muhammad Abdul Rauf Siddiqui v. S.H.O. Police Station, Gulberg, Karachi 2013 PCr.LJ 70 rel. Jan Muhammad Khan for Petitioners. Rashid Hafeez, Additional Attorney General, Imran Farooq, A.A.G., Muhammad Azmat Khan, Assistant Director, FIA, Muhammad Ali Afzal and Obaid ur Rehman, A.D (Legal), NADRA for Respondents. Complainant in person. Date of hearing: 2nd December, 2025. JUDGMENT SAMAN RAFAT IMTIAZ, J.--- 1. This consolidated judgment shall decide all the above four titled Petitions as they involve similar questions of facts and law. 2. The Petitioners [Amir Muhammad, Muhammad Shah, Dawood Khan Mohmand, Maqsood Ahmad, Muhammad Yousaf, and Muhammad Azam) have, by way of the instant petition, assailed the Orders dated 25-2-2025 ("Impugned Orders") passed by the learned Senior Special Judge Central, Islamabad dismissing the Petitioners Applications for referral of the matters to the Court of competent jurisdiction. 3. The brief facts, as per the Memoranda of Petitions are that the Embassy of Afghanistan in Saudi Arabia surrendered to the Embassy of Pakistan in Riyadh 12,096 Pakistani passports, which had been surrendered by Afghan nationals. Upon scrutiny it was discovered that a significant number of passports (7613) had been fraudulently obtained by non-nationals who secured Pakistani Computerized National Identity Cards ("CNIC") and passports in connivance with the officials of the National Database and Registration Authority ("NADRA") and the Directorate of Immigration and Passport ("IMPASS"). The Respondent No. 2 [Noor Aslam, Assistant Director, (Ops), Regional Headquarter, NADRA Quetta, and Baluchistan] filed complaints against the officers allegedly involved in the unauthorized circumvention, interference and entry/access into NADRA's critical information infrastructure and breach of NADRA's Registration Policy. This led to the commencement of Enquiry No. E-58/2023 on 16-12-2023. During the course of the enquiry proceedings, it was revealed that the Petitioners who were the then Officers In-Charge, Center In-charge, and Assistant Directors, NADRA were implicated in the approval of CNICs for non-nationals, subsequently facilitating the processing and issuance of the CNICs with dishonest intention for illegal gain and in violation of Registration Policy issued by NADRA. The illicit conduct was allegedly carried out in collaboration with accompanying staff, fraudulent family heads/members who aided the infiltrator by posing as part of their family, attesters, and others. The enquiry culminated in the lodging of the FIRs Nos. 8, 11, 12, and 13 of 2024 ("Subject FIRs") against the Petitioners. The learned Senior Special Judge Central, Islamabad took cognizance of the matter. The Petitioners contend that since the offences leveled in the Subject FIR registered at Police Station Counter Terrorism Wing ("CTW")/Federal Investigation Agency ("FIA"), Islamabad are alleged to have committed in the territorial jurisdiction of Baluchistan the matter cannot be tried before the learned Senior Special Judge Central, Islamabad. Yet the report under Section 173, Cr.P.C. ("Challan") has been filed before the learned Senior Special Judge Central, Islamabad which is the wrong forum. As such, the Petitioners filed Applications under Section 4 of the Pakistan Criminal Amendment Act, 1958 read with Section 177, Cr.P.C, Section 41 of Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 ("PECA, 2016") and other enabling provisions of law for referral of the case to the court of competent jurisdiction. However, the same has been dismissed vide the Impugned Orders in view of the Notification dated 23-09-2015 whereby the Police Station CTW/FIA, Islamabad has been given jurisdiction over the whole of Pakistan, which the Petitioners have challenged by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court by way of the instant petitions. 4. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that as per Column 4 of the Subject FIRs the place of occurrence of the alleged offences was Balochistan. As such the Petitioners moved the Applications seeking referral of the case to the Court of competent jurisdiction which were dismissed by the learned Senior Special Judge Central, Islamabad vide the Impugned Orders by erroneously relying upon Notification dated 23-9-2015 issued by the Ministry of Interior giving jurisdiction to the Police Station CTW/FIA, Islamabad in respect of certain offences under various laws over the whole of Pakistan. He explained that such jurisdiction is to inquire, investigate and prosecute cases under certain laws but the said notification does not change the territorial jurisdiction of the Senior Special Judge Central, Islamabad. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that under Section 4 of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 it is the Court having territorial jurisdiction in respect of the alleged offence who shall try the case. He argued that the Senior Special Judge Central, Islamabad does not have the territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of offences committed in Balochistan. 5. In answer to a question as to which provision of law can be invoked for the grant of the prayer of the Petitioners, the learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that there is no specific provision of law and this position was considered by this Court in Rao Fahd Ali Khan v. The State and another, 2014 PCr. LJ 1071 where the issue of transmitting a case from the learned Magistrate to a Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court was involved. In such case this Court held that since the matter was neither triable by the Court of Sessions nor by the learned Magistrate as it was exclusively triable by the Special Judge ATC the Magistrate may return the FIR and the Challan to the prosecution for its onward submission before the concerned court. He therefore submitted that in case the Senior Special Judge Central, Islamabad in the instant matter also returns the FIR and the Challan to FIA, the FIA may submit the same before the Special Judge appointed under the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 having territorial jurisdiction as FIA is admittedly empowered to investigate and prosecute matters under the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 all over Pakistan. 6. The learned Assistant Attorney General has placed before this Court the Notification dated 27-11-2023 whereby in exercise of powers conferred under Section 4(2) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 the Federal Government has declared Judge, Special Court (Central-I), Islamabad as Senior Special Judge for the trial of cases under the said Act in the Islamabad Capital Territory. It further clarifies that under Section 4(3) of the above said Act, Senior Special Judge may, by order, in writing, transfer at any stage of the trial, any case from the Court of one Special Judge to the Court of another Special Judge having jurisdiction within the same territorial limits. He submitted that the FIA is fully authorized to conduct investigation all over Pakistan pursuant to Notification dated 23-9-2015, which refers to relevant laws related to inter alia cybercrimes/terrorism and points out that the Subject FIRs contain offences under PECA, 2016. Therefore, he argued that the Senior Special Judge Central, Islamabad has the requisite jurisdiction in the matter. 7. Even otherwise, the learned Assistant Attorney General contended that although jurisdiction to inquire into and try an offence is generally where the offence is committed, however, due to the use of the word 'ordinarily' in Section 177, Cr.P.C. it is not confined to such location. He pointed out that under Section 179, Cr.P.C., the offence is also triable where consequences of the offence have ensued. In addition, Section 188, Cr.P.C. provides that where the offence is committed outside of Pakistan it may be dealt with at any place within Pakistan. 8. In this background he submitted that the surrendered passports were brought into the country through Islamabad and since it is admitted that FIA has jurisdiction to investigate the concerned offence all over Pakistan the scrutiny of the passports surrendered in Riyadh was conducted in Islamabad, which resulted in the knowledge of the FIA about the commission of the offence in Islamabad. In this regard he referred to Section 154, Cr.P.C. to submit that an FIR may be lodged where the knowledge is gained and accordingly the Subject FIRs were registered in Islamabad. He argued that since knowledge was gained in Islamabad the same is a consequence that ensued, which falls under 179, Cr.P.C. In support of his submissions he has relied upon Faqir Khan v. Bakhtawar Jan and 4 others, 2019 PCr. LJ 1558 and Mazhar Hussain v. The State and 2 others, PLD 2010 Lahore 60 in which the Division Benches of both the Lahore High Court as well as the Peshawar High Court came to the conclusion that the place where knowledge of the dishonour of a cheque was gained by the complainant can also be treated as a consequence that ensues the alleged offence. 9. The learned Assistant Attorney General relied upon the Complainants written by the Respondent No. 2/complainant to highlight that they have been made on the letterhead of NADRA Headquarter located in Islamabad. He also submitted that apart from the fact that FIR has been lodged in Islamabad, the Challan has also been submitted within the territorial jurisdiction of the Senior Special Judge Central, Islamabad and bail has been granted to the Petitioners by this Court and some of the witnesses are also located in Islamabad. First of all perusal of the Complaints shows that although the letterhead of NADRA Headquarters, Islamabad is used the Complainant under his name and signature has categorically written 'Quetta' which seems to suggest that the Complaint was made from Quetta. There is no material before this Court to substantiate the statement made that he was flown into Islamabad from Quetta to make the Complaint. Even otherwise the Respondent failed to explain how filing of complaint or submission of challan at a certain location can vest jurisdiction upon the Senior Special Judge Central, Islamabad if the act done and the ensuing consequences comprising the offence have taken place elsewhere. 10. Similarly, the Respondents relied upon various documents of FIA in the police file issued from the FIA Headquarters for purposes of investigation but failed to show how the investigation carried out by FIA in Islamabad by virtue of jurisdiction conferred upon it under Notification dated 23-9-2015 can vest jurisdiction in the Senior Special Judge Central, Islamabad who has jurisdiction only for trial of cases under the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 in the Islamabad Capital Territory. 11. The learned Additional Attorney General also relied upon Section 179, Cr.P.C. He submitted that the Subject FIRs specifically mention that the offence committed by the Petitioners was the grant of approval of CNICs for non-nationals and the subsequent facilitation, processing and issuance of the CNICs with dishonest intention for illegal gain and in violation of Registration Policy issued by NADRA. He explained that processing of CNICs takes place in Islamabad as per NADRA law and policy as all the CNICs issued anywhere in Pakistan are processed and printed In Islamabad. He relied upon Total Parco Pakistan Limited through Authorized Officer v. Justice of peace/Additional Sessions Judge (West), Islamabad and 2 others, 2021 YLR 1436; Faqir Khan v. Bakhtawar Jan and 4 others, 2019 PCr.LJ 1558; Mazhar Hussain v. The State and 2 others, PLD 2010 Lahore 60; Basharat Iqbal v. The State and another, 1993 SCMR 1901; Muhammad Sultan v. Muhammad Raza and others, 2020 SCMR 1200 and Mirza Ali Khan v. Sessions Judge, Peshawar, 2002 SCMR 1461. 12. The learned Assistant Attorney General argued that the Senior Special Judge Central, Islamabad has jurisdiction for the trial of the offences in question under Section 177 Cr.P.C as an offence consists of mens rea as well as actus reus. He submitted that the act of processing and printing of CNICs was carried out in Islamabad which constitutes part of the actus reus. He submitted a Note dated 17-7-2025 issued by the Director, Operation Division informing that the processing of identification documents is carried out at the center and subsequently printing and/or dispatching of identification documents is executed. The learned AAG has relied upon Sections 3, 14, and 35 of the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 to submit that the printing of CNICs is carried out at Islamabad and at no other location notwithstanding existence of branch or registration offices elsewhere in Pakistan. 13. Mr. Muhammad Ali Afzal, Assistant Director (Legal), NADRA has clarified in respect of a query of the Court that for purposes of printing of CNICS NADRA is self-sufficient and does not utilize the services of the Pakistan Printing Press Corporation and such printing facilities employed by NADRA are located only in Islamabad and a latest facility has been initiated in Lahore. He filed a Report dated 28-7-2025 before this Court confirming that NADRA operates a centralized printing facility located at its Headquarter in Islamabad utilized for the printing and dispatch of CNICs to the designated locations/centers for subsequent delivery to the applicant which therefore establishes that printing of the CNICs takes place in Islamabad including the CNICs which were allegedly fraudulently obtained by non-nationals in connivance with NADRA officials including the Petitioners but that issuance takes place at the designated centers where the applicant is located. 14. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Petitioners pointed out that Islamabad has nowhere been mentioned in the Subject FIR or the Challan. He argues that the printing of the CNICs in Islamabad cannot be described as a consequence of the alleged offences and that issuance does not take place in Islamabad except for residents of Islamabad rather the CNICs are merely dispatched from Islamabad to the relevant place where issuance to the card holder taken place which in the instant case was not Islamabad. 15. He submitted that the case law relied upon by the learned Assistant Attorney General is distinguishable as it pertains to the offence of 489-F, P.P.C. where dishonour of cheque is part of the offence and as such the place where the cheque is dishonoured is also considered the place where the offence is committed. He further submitted that the Notification dated 23-9-2015 makes it abundantly clear that FIA has the jurisdiction to enquire, investigate and prosecute cases pertaining to the stipulated offences in the whole of Pakistan. Had the Legislature intended the same for the Special Judge under the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 the legislature would have clarified in the same unambiguous manner that such a Special Judge would also have jurisdiction to try offences under the said act committed anywhere in Pakistan but the Legislature restricted the jurisdiction of the Special Judge to such territorial limits as may be fixed by the appropriate Government. The learned counsel for the Petitioners denies that any of the witnesses are in Islamabad. 16. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record and considered the applicable law. 17. The Subject FIRs have been registered against the Petitioners under Sections 6, 8, and 10 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 ("PECA, 2016") read with Section 30 of the National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 ("NADRA Ordinance") read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 ("PCA 1947") read with Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 ("Foreigners Act") read with Sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 409, 34, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 ("P.P.C."). FIA jurisdiction 18. Given that the Subject FIRs are registered, inter alia, under PECA, 2016, which pertains to, inter alia, cyber-crimes/terrorism, the FIA conducted inquiry and investigation into the matter pursuant to Notification dated 23-09-2015 whereby the Federal Government, in exercise of the powers conferred under subsection (4) of Section 5 of the Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974 declared the Office of Director, CTW, FIA Headquarters, Islamabad to be a Police Station for the purposes of Cr.P.C., having jurisdiction in the whole of Pakistan to inquire, investigate, and prosecute cases registered under the Protection of Pakistan Act, 2014, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 or any other relevant law related to terrorism, terrorist financing and cyber-crimes/terrorism. Jurisdiction of Special Judge under the Pakistan Criminal Amendment Act, 1958 19. The Challan was submitted to the learned Senior Special Judge Central, Islamabad appointed under the Pakistan Criminal Amendment Act, 1958. A Special Judge is appointed under Section 3(1) of the Pakistan Criminal Amendment Act, 1958 by the appropriate Government (as defined in the said Act) by notification in the official Gazette to punish offences specified in the Schedule of the said Act, which pursuant to Section 5(1) thereof are triable exclusively by a Special Judge. The Schedule of offences under the Pakistan Criminal Amendment Act, 1958 includes but is not limited to the offences punishable under Sections 409 to 420, P.P.C., and as attempts, abetments, and conspiracies in relation thereto or connected therewith, when committed by any public servant as well as offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 20. As noted herein above, the Subject FIRs have been registered under, inter alia, Sections 409, 419, 420, 34, and 109, P.P.C. against the Petitioners, who are admittedly public servants. The Subject FIRs have been registered for other offences as well which do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Special Judge per se as they are not contained in the Schedule to the Pakistan Criminal Amendment Act, 1958 but Section 5(7) of the Pakistan Criminal Amendment Act, 1958 provides that the Special Judge may, when trying an offence under the said Act, also charge and try other offences not so triable with which the accused may, under the provisions of Cr.P.C., relating to the joinder of charges, be charged at the same trial. Thus the offences the Petitioners have allegedly committed under the Subject FIRs are triable by the Special Judge under the Pakistan Criminal Amendment Act, 1958.1 21. Notwithstanding the generality of the foregoing, the Special Judge, pursuant to Section 4(1) of the Pakistan Criminal Amendment Act, 1958, has jurisdiction within such territorial limits as may be fixed by the appropriate Government by notification in the official Gazette and may take cognizance of any offence committed or deemed to have been committed within such limits and triable under the Act. The Notification dated 27-11-2023 relied upon by the Respondents has been issued in exercise of the powers under Section 4(2) of the Pakistan Criminal Amendment Act, 1958 and as such declares who the Senior Special Judge for trial of cases under the Pakistan Criminal Amendment Act, 1958 is in the Islamabad Capital Territory. In any event, it is clear that the Senior Special Judge, Central, Islamabad has only been conferred the power to try cases under the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 in the Islamabad Capital Territory. Therefore, the question arises as to how the Senior Special Judge Central, Islamabad can take cognizance of offences Committed in Balochistan. 22. The Respondents' reliance upon the Notification dated 23-09-2015 is misconceived. Merely because the investigation agency is empowered to conduct the investigation into the alleged offences in the whole of Pakistan does not in any way enlarge the jurisdiction of the Special Judge under the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 to the whole of Pakistan. 23. A similar issue arose in the case of Riasat Ali v. The State, 2024 PCr.LJ 1511, in which an FIR was registered at Police Station FIA Circle, Gujrat whereas the place of occurrence…

Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from Islamabad High Court
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant