MUHAMMAD ANSAR vs THE STATE
This petition for post-arrest bail arose from a case registered under the Prevention and Control of Human Trafficking Ordinance, 2002. The petitioner challenged the observation of the Additional Sessions Judge, who had determined that the matter fell under the jurisdiction of the Special Judge (Central) due to the applicability of the Immigration Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the allegations in the FIR constituted 'human trafficking' under the 2002 Ordinance, thereby justifying the jurisdiction of the court handling such offenses. The Court held that the definition of human trafficking under Section 2(h) of the Prevention and Control of Human Trafficking Ordinance, 2002, requires the presence of coercion, kidnapping, abduction, or illicit payment for transportation. Since the FIR lacked allegations of coercion or force, the Court found that the essential ingredients for the application of Section 3 were absent. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition in limine, affirming that the matter properly fell within the jurisdiction of the Special Judge (Central) and directing the petitioner to approach that forum for relief.
- Does a mere promise to provide employment abroad constitute human trafficking under the Prevention and Control of Human Trafficking Ordinance, 2002?
- What are the essential ingredients required to establish the offense of human trafficking under Section 2(h) of the Prevention and Control of Human Trafficking Ordinance, 2002?
- Does the absence of coercion or force in an FIR preclude the application of Section 3 of the Prevention and Control of Human Trafficking Ordinance, 2002?
- Section 3, Prevention and Control of Human Trafficking Ordinance 2002
- Section 4, Prevention and Control of Human Trafficking Ordinance 2002
- Section 2(h), Prevention and Control of Human Trafficking Ordinance 2002
- Section 22, Immigration Ordinance 1979
ORDER
' SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, J.---Through this petition, petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case FIR No, 786, dated 7.11.2007, registered under Sections 3/4, HTO, 2002, with Police Station FIA Gujranwala.
2. Heard Record perused.
3. The petitioner filed post arrest bail which came up for hearing before the learned Judicial Magistrate, who dismissed the same on 30.11.2007. He preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, which came up before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala, who observed in his order dated 13.1.2007 that jurisdiction in this matter rest with Special Judge (Central) as Section 22 of Immigration Ordinance, 1979 is squarely attracted.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that observation of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala is bereft of any merit as the allegations mentioned in the FIR attracts the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention and Control of Human Trafficking Ordinance, 2002.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. Human Trafficking is defined under Section 2(h), which reads as under:-- "(h) "human trafficking" means obtaining, securing, selling, purchasing, recruiting, detaining, harbouring or receiving a person, notwithstanding his implicit or explicit consent, by the use of coercion, kidnapping, abduction, or by giving or receiving any payment or benefit, or sharing or receiving a share for such person's subsequent transportation out of or into Pakistan by any means whatsoever for any of the purposes mentioned in section 3."
7. Bare reading of Section 2(h), manifests coercion, kidnapping, abduction, or by giving or receiving any payment, or sharing or receiving a share for such persons subsequent transportation out of Pakistan by any means, whatsoever, for any of the purposes mentioned in Section 3 is sine qua non to attract provision of Section 3 of the Ordinance.
8. Mere promise or taking a person outside Pakistan to provide employment abroad will not constitute "human trafficking" within the meaning of Section 3 of the Ordinance. Essential ingredients for application of Section 3 are coercion, kidnapping, abduction etc. Reading of the FIR does not indicate any coercion or use of force. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, has rightly observed that matter relates to the jurisdiction of the learned Special Judge (Central), calling for no interference.
9. For what has been discussed above, this petition is dismissed in limine. The petitioner, however, if so advised, may approach the learned Special Judge (Central) for the relief sought for. in limine.