Exit from Pakistan (control) Rules 2010

Exit from Pakistan (control) Rules 2010

Rule 2 — Exit form Pakistan (control) Ordinance XLVI of 1981.. section 2 placing name of person on the Exit control list…. Ground – pendency of a criminal case.. Name of the respondent bad been placed on exist control list as she was nominated in a case of murder of accustoms officer in connection with smuggling of foreign currency— legality… notification/memorandum. whereby name of respondent was placed on the Exist control list, was issued purportedly for a reason which did not conform to the criteria as laid down in the exist from Pakistan Control Rules 2010 and the exist control policy. Liberty of a citizen could not be curtailed by mere registration of a criminal case – Registration of an FIR had no nexus with and was extraneous to the object of the exits from Pakistan control ordinance 1981. Furthermore, while issuing the impugned notification/memorandum the Ministry of Interior had also overlooked an order of High Court whereby the said Ministry was restricted from placing the respondent’s name on the Exist control List has therefore rightly struck off the impugned notification/memorandum – Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly .

2017 SCMR 1179

Exit from Pakistan (Control) List

Exit from Pakistan (control) Ordinance

Section 2 and 3(2) from Pakistan (control) Rules 2010…. Constitution of Pakistan Articles 10A and 199…. Constitution Petition… placement of name of Exit control list on request by financial Institution… default.. Scope… petitioner impugned placement of their names on Exit control on account of outstanding liability to pay amounts to a financial institution (Bank).. Contention of the petitioners was that placement of their name on the exit control list on request of the financial institution and the state bank of Pakistan was illegal.. held… that where a financial intuition was seeking to recover amounts from a customer the banking court after due process of law, adjudicates upon the matter and decide the question of default and without clear determination from a court of competent jurisdiction on the question of default, the state bank of Pakistan could not use state machinery for recovery purpose… key words used in Rule 2(e) of liabilities and admittedly there was no decree against the petitioners with respect to amounts stated to be due to the financial institution…. State machinery could not be used for purposes of exerting pressure or in a private dispute unless government interest was at stake and the same was clearly provided in Rule 2(2)(a) of the exit from Pakistan control rules 2010… petitioners names therefore had been placed on ECL without application of mind, in a mechanical manner and without considering the element of public interest by the respondents.. And they had been denied their fundamental rights without due process of law.. High Court directed that the names of the petitioner be removed from ECL… constitutional Petition was allowed, accordingly. PLD 2010 Lahore 230, 2013 SCMR 1749

(PLD 2014 Lahore 482)

Every Illegal Order can be challenged in Constitutional Petition

Constitutional Petition

Article 199 Constitutional jurisdiction of Higher Court, invocation of ….scope.. Aggrieved person… scope…. If an order was passed by any court or tribunal in violation of law and without authority the same could be questioned by an aggrieved person by invoking constitutional jurisdiction of Higher Court.

PLD 2001 SC 149,

(2014 CLC 1168 Lahore)

International Law of Contract

International Law of Contract

Contact- where a contract is entered into with a foreign national or a foreign company, it is governed by the municipal laws of the country where the contract is executed subject to any special provision to the contrary incorporated in the contract

( PLD 2013 SC 641)

Dishonestly issuing a cheque

Dishonestly issuing a cheque

Section 384, 463 and 489-F PPC — dishonestly issuing a cheque – recovery of cheque amount — scope – complainant in a criminal case under section 489-F PPC could not ask a criminal court to effect any recovery of amount involved in the cheque  – cheque amount involved in the offence under section 489-F PPC was never considered as stolen property – Had the same been treated as stolen property ? the investigating agency would certainly have been equipped with a power to recover said amount as provided under Chapter XVII PPC under which only remedy provided for the prosecution was the conviction of accused and no process for recovery could be effected.

 Dishonestly issuing a cheque  — Bail—cheque issued as guaranteed/ security  — recipient of the cheque using the same to exert pressure on the issuer to force him to surrender to his illegal demands  – such misuse of section 489-F PPC for the purpose of securing money would be termed as extortion. Bail was granted.

PLD 2013 Lahore 173