Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 3,4,12,109,197,198,406,409,411,414,420,4 21,424,468,471,477A

Law: Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979

Section: 14

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 188,190(1),204,439

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 4---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.188---Extra-territorial jurisdiction---Pre-conditions---Such jurisdiction is subject to fulfilment of conditions that accused is not found at any place in Pakistan under any circumstance and certificate of political agent or sanction of Federal Government as the case may be is obtained---If either of the conditions is not satisfied, a criminal Court in Pakistan cannot have the extra-territorial jurisdiction to try a person alleged to have committed an offence outside Pakistan. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 3, 4, 12, 109, 197, 198, 406, 409, 411, 414, 420, 421, 424, 468, 471 & 477-A--Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.14---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.188, 190(1), 204 & 439---Extra-territorial jurisdiction---Expression "found", as used in S.188, Cr.P.C.---Connotation---Quashing of proceedings---Offence was committed in a foreign country and private complaint was filed in Criminal Court in Pakistan; in which Trial Court issued process against the accused who was a resident of foreign country---Accused raised the plea that after commission of offence, he never arrived/brought in Pakistan, therefore, Trial Court had no jurisdiction in the matter---Validity---Expression "found" used in S.188, Cr.P.C. meant that a person was physically and actually present at any place in Pakistan or had voluntarily appeared before a Court in Pakistan or appeared in answer to the summons or he was brought before the Court under arrest---Presence of accused anywhere in Pakistan and procurement of his attendance before trial Court in Pakistan had not been shown, therefore, Courts in Pakistan taking cognizance of the offence under S.190(1), Cr.P.C. upon receiving a complaint had no jurisdiction to deal with the accused---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction quashed the proceedings against the accused being without jurisdiction---Revision was allowed accordingly. Sodagar V. The State PLD 1962 (W.P.) Pesh. 32; Pheroze Jehangir Dastoor v. The State AIR 1964 Bom. 264; Abu Bakar v. The State 1989 PCr.LJ 369; AIR 1948 Nag. 251;…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492