INAYAT-UR-REHMAN and anothers vs The STATE
This matter concerns a petition for the quashment of orders passed by lower courts regarding territorial jurisdiction in criminal cases involving the sale of pirated books. The petitioners, accused of selling pirated books in District Swabi, argued that the Judicial Magistrate in Peshawar lacked the territorial jurisdiction to try the cases, asserting that jurisdiction lay with the courts in District Swabi. The core legal question was whether the Peshawar-based FIA Police Station and the corresponding Judicial Magistrate possessed the requisite territorial jurisdiction to try offenses committed in Swabi. The Court held that while Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 generally mandates that offenses be tried where committed, a specific notification issued by the Federal Government on 10-5-2006 explicitly designated the jurisdiction of the Deputy Director, FIA, Crime Circle, Peshawar, to include District Swabi. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the Judicial Magistrate-VI, Peshawar, maintained lawful jurisdiction over the cases. The petitions were dismissed, confirming that the impugned orders of the lower courts were free from jurisdictional defect or illegality.
- Does a Federal Government notification defining the jurisdiction of an FIA Police Station override the general rule of territorial jurisdiction under Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the Judicial Magistrate in Peshawar have jurisdiction to try offenses committed in District Swabi if the FIA Police Station in Peshawar is notified to cover that area?
- Can a court dismiss a petition for quashment if the lower courts' concurrent findings on jurisdiction are legally sound?
- Section 66, Copyright Ordinance 1962
- Section 66-A, Copyright Ordinance 1962
- Section 67, Copyright Ordinance 1962
- Section 486, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 177, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, C.J.---Khurum Shiraz, Junior Manager, Oxford University Press, submitted applications to Deputy Director, FIA, Crime Circle Peshawar, that pirated books of Oxford University were being sold by Inayat ur Rehman son of Abdul Ghaffar, resident of Mohallah Ali Khan Khel, Turlandi, Swabi, owner of M/S. Arshad Printer and Publishers, Jehangira Road, Swabi, and Muhammad Waseem son of Said Qayum, owner of M/S. College Book, Main Bazar Topi, Swabi. On such information, FIA team conducted raids at the respective shops and recovered 2300 & 670 pirated books of different series of Oxford University Press Pakistan from M/S. Arshad Printer & Publishers and M/S. College Book Depo respectively and as such, FIRs Nos. 44 & 45 were registered against Inayat ur Rehman and Muhammad Waseem, the petitioners, under sections 66/66-A/67 of Copyright Ordinance, 1962 read with sections 486/109, P.P.C. At Police Station, FIA ACC, Hayat Abad, Peshawar.
2. After completion of investigation, challans in both the above referred cases were submitted before Judicial Magistrate-VI, Peshawar for trial. During pendency of the cases, the petitioners- accused submitted applioations under section 177, Cr.P.C. For sending the cases to District Swabi on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction but the same were rejected by learned Judicial Magistrate-VI, Peshawar, vide order dated 6-1-2014.
3 . Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed criminal revisions but the same too, were dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Peshawar, vide judgment dated 17-6-2014.
4. Still dissatisfied, the petitioner, Inayat ur Rehman filed Cr.Misc No.131/2014 while Muhammad Waseem filed Cr.Misc. No.132 of 2014 for the quashment of order passed by the lower fora dated 6- 1-2014 and 17-6-2014. Since in both the writ petitions similar question is involved, therefore, I intend to dispose of the same through this single judgment.
5. The learned counsel for petitioner though was present in Court in the morning but, thereafter, left the Court and did not appear despite repeated calls. So, this Court is going to decide both the cases with the assistance of Mr. F.M Sabir, learned Standing Counsel for Federation, and counsel for complainant as the law on the subject is clear and established.
6. The main stance of the petitioners as depicted from their petitions is that both the petitioners hail from District Swabi and recovery of pirated books has also been effected from the shops situated at Swabi, therefore, the courts at District Peshawar due to lack of territorial jurisdiction are not competent to take cognizance of the matters as the Courts at Swabi have the jurisdiction to try the cases.
Of course, under section 177, Cr.P.C. Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired in and tried by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction it was committed but in the cases in hand, the complainant had lodged both the complaints to Deputy Director, FIA, Crime Circle, Peshawar, against the petitioners and on the basis of such complaints raids were conducted at the shops situated in District Swabi. The Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad, had issued notification on 10-5-2006 wherein the Federal Government specified the area of jurisdiction of the Police Stations of the Federal Investigation Agencies. The perusal of above referred notification would reveal that the area of jurisdiction of Deputy Director, FIA, Crime Circle, Peshawar, notified as Police Station to Districts Peshawar, Charsada, Nowshera, Mardan, Swabi, Kohat, Hangu and PATA for the purpose of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. No doubt, Oxford University Press is situated at Samad Tower, Tehkal Payan, Peshawar, and Police Station, FIA/ACC, where the cases have been registered, also situated at Peshawar and the alleged recovery of pirated books has been made by FIA in Swabi but District Swabi falls in the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station, FIA/ACC, Peshawar, therefore, Judicial Magistrate-VI, Peshawar, has the jurisdiction to try the cases pertaining to Police Station, FIA/ACC, Peshawar. The impugned orders are concurrent which require no interference as the same are not suffering from any jurisdictional defect, illegality, or material irregularity.
So, in this view of the matter, both the petitions are without substance and are dismissed.