MUHAMMAD ANSAR Versus State
This matter arises from a petition seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention and Control of Human Trafficking Ordinance, 2002. The core legal question concerns the proper statutory interpretation of human trafficking under Section 2(h) and Section 3 of the said Ordinance, specifically whether a mere promise of employment or taking a person abroad for employment without coercion, kidnapping, or abduction constitutes human trafficking under the law. The Lahore High Court held that the essential ingredients of human trafficking—such as coercion, kidnapping, abduction, or improper payments for subsequent transportation—are sine qua non for attracting Section 3 of the Ordinance, and a mere promise of employment abroad does not suffice. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine with the observation that the matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Special Judge (Central) under the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, and the petitioner was directed to approach the appropriate forum.
- Does a mere promise of employment or taking a person outside Pakistan to provide employment abroad constitute human trafficking under Section 3 of the Prevention and Control of Human Trafficking Ordinance, 2002?
- What are the essential ingredients required to attract the provisions of Section 3 of the Prevention and Control of Human Trafficking Ordinance, 2002?
- Does the absence of coercion, kidnapping, or abduction in an F.I.R. exclude the application 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, Emigration Ordinance 1979
ORDER
SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, J .---Through this petition, petitioner seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No.786, dated 7-11-2007, registered under Sections 3/4 HTO 2002 with Police Station F.I.A. 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 Emigration 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 F.I.R. 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 F.I.R. 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.
H.B.T./M-619/L Petition dismisse