Javed Rehman VS State

JUDGMENT SHEET

IS LAMA BAD HI GHC OU

IS D

Qrl. Miq.c. Nq. 836-8/4.91l

Javed-ur-Rehman Vs.

The State etc.

Petitioner by:

State by:

_Cgmplainant in person.

Date of decision: 21-06-2011

Riaz Ahmad Khan J: Joved-ur-Rehmon seeks post o'est boil in cose FIR No. 11 l2OOg, doted Ol _04_2OO g, l)ls 7 ,g,g,l S,1g,2O of The Prevention of Erectronic crimes ordinonc e, 2oo7 reod with section 36, 37 of Erectronic Tronsoctions ordinonce, 2002, Police stotion F.r.A. cyber crime circre, Roworpindi.

2.Brief focts os per F.r.R. ore thot the comproinont Jonos Khon received on emoir messoge sent by one Honson Torence, through which he wos informed thot he hod won rottery omounting to r.3 Miilion US Doilors. The comproinont wos osked by o group on the bosis of o foke retter to poy 7.s% of the totor omount of rottery. The comproinont occordingry tronsfe,ed on omount of Rs.r,g3,ooo/- into the nome of Miss Moryom Foqir, holder of on occount in GRES Bonk rsromobod, then tronsferred onother omount of Rs.r,3gg,125/- in the bonk occount mointoined by the petitioner Joved-ur-Rehmon in Foysor Bonk, Brue Areo Bronch, rsromobod, ogoin poid in cosh uS $ 20,000 to one Jon Cosmos, ogoin sent gr 5.2g uK pounds to one Honson

Cfl. Misc. No. 036-Ft.201.1 2

Terrence, UK through western Union, then sent on omount of 2700 US Dollors to Honson Terrence, UK through western Union.

on receiving the comproint, enquiry wos conducted ond it tronspired thot occount of Miss Moryom Foriq wos being operoted by Joved-ur-Rehmon ond she did not know onything obout ony tronsoctions mode in her occount. Joved-ur- Rehmon got signed bronk cheques from Miss Moryom Foqir for the operotion of her occount. As o resurt, F.r.R. wos registered.

3.Leorned counser for the petitioner contended thot the cose hos been registered with molqfide intention, os the petitioner hos not committed the offence in which he hos been chorged. Leorned counser for the petitioner further contended thot the cose of the petitioner is one of further enquiry ond the pelitioner is entifled to the concession of boil.

4.on the other hond, reorned stonding counser ossisted by Assistont Director (Legol), FIA contended thqt the comploinont hos been defrouded ond huge omount wos emb ezred by the petitioner.

5 I hove heord leorned counser for the porties ond hove olso perused the record.

6.ln the present cose, even if the ollegotions teveled in

the F.l.R. ore odmitted to be correct, no cose under Prevention of Electronic crimes ordinonc e, 2oo7 or Electronic Tronsoctions ordinonce, 2oo2 is mode out. The only ollegotion ogoinst the petitioner is thot on emoil messoge wos sent to the

Grf ..Misc-. ,No. ?86-F/201 1

comploinont ond then on ogreement between comproinont ond lwo other occused wos executed. Even if this oilegotion is occepted, it wourd not meon thot the petitioner hod mode illegol excess to documents, record, or hod destroyed the informotion system of ony service provider. rnfoct, the olleged offence is not reloting to telecommunicotion lows.

on the foce of it, it con be soid thot this is o cose of simple froud ond misrepresentotion. The occused hos not been chorged under relevont sections of lows. Even under the olleged sections of lows, the whole omount wos not sent to the petitioner ond the ollegotion thot the omount wos octuolly sent under misconception wourd require evidence, os such, the cose of the petitioner is one of further enquiry. ln the circumstonces, this boil petition is

occepted. The petitioner be releosed on boil subject to his furnishing boil bonds in the sum of Rs.l ,OO,OOO/- with two locol sureties in the like omount to the sotisfoction of leorned triol Court.

(R|AZ AHMAD KHAN)

JUDGE

W"1il

Uploaded By : Engr. Umer Rasheed Dar

$r