— Ss. 17, 18 & 22 — Unlawful emigration — Fraudulently inducing to emigrate — Receiving money for providing foreign employment — Scope — Accused assailed his conviction under sections 17, 18 and 22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 — Prosecution had produced overwhelming evidence from individuals who had been directly affected by the false promise of providing emigration and jobs abroad — The complainant had recorded a detailed statement, indicating he had been offered a high-level job and had paid a substantial amount to the accused and his wife — Similarly, other private witnesses had also been deceived and deprived of their money under the pretext of work visas, but they had received open visas instead — One witness had paid significant sums on different occasions for a promised work visa — Another individual had been promised a work visa for a specific position abroad and had paid a substantial amount — Another witness had been deprived of a considerable sum under the same pretext — All these affected individuals, including the complainant, were from the same district, while the accused, a resident of a different city, had traveled to their district, conducted interviews, and had thus been specifically nominated by the complainant and other private witnesses for the charged offenses — Apart from the oral evidence of the affected individuals, to support the complainant’s version, the Investigating Officer had brought on record sufficient documentary evidence — It had been proven that the accused and his wife operated specific bank accounts into which amounts had been sent from the complainant’s wife’s account — Numerous deposit slips from a bank clearly showed that the complainant’s wife and other affected individuals had deposited millions of rupees into the accounts of the accused and his wife — These were undeniable documentary proofs, obtained through proper channels and brought on record during the investigation, which the accused could not refute — Appeal was dismissed. [2024 CCJ 31 = 2024 PCrLJ 318]

— Ss. 17, 18 & 22 — Unlawful emigration — Fraudulently inducing to emigrate — Receiving money for providing foreign employment — Scope — Accused assailed his conviction under sections 17, 18 and 22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 — Prosecution had produced overwhelming evidence from individuals who had been directly affected by the false promise of providing emigration and jobs abroad — The complainant had recorded a detailed statement, indicating he had been offered a high-level job and had paid a substantial amount to the accused and his wife — Similarly, other private witnesses had also been deceived and deprived of their money under the pretext of work visas, but they had received open visas instead — One witness had paid significant sums on different occasions for a promised work visa — Another individual had been promised a work visa for a specific position abroad and had paid a substantial amount — Another witness had been deprived of a considerable sum under the same pretext — All these affected individuals, including the complainant, were from the same district, while the accused, a resident of a different city, had traveled to their district, conducted interviews, and had thus been specifically nominated by the complainant and other private witnesses for the charged offenses — Apart from the oral evidence of the affected individuals, to support the complainant’s version, the Investigating Officer had brought on record sufficient documentary evidence — It had been proven that the accused and his wife operated specific bank accounts into which amounts had been sent from the complainant’s wife’s account — Numerous deposit slips from a bank clearly showed that the complainant’s wife and other affected individuals had deposited millions of rupees into the accounts of the accused and his wife — These were undeniable documentary proofs, obtained through proper channels and brought on record during the investigation, which the accused could not refute — Appeal was dismissed. [2024 CCJ 31 = 2024 PCrLJ 318]

— Ss. 17, 18 & 22 — Unlawful emigration — Fraudulently inducing to emigrate — Receiving money for providing foreign employment — Scope — Accused assailed his conviction under sections 17, 18 and 22 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979 — Prosecution had produced overwhelming evidence from individuals who had been directly affected by the false promise of providing emigration and jobs abroad — The complainant had recorded a detailed statement, indicating he had been offered a high-level job and had paid a substantial amount to the accused and his wife — Similarly, other private witnesses had also been deceived and deprived of their money under the pretext of work visas, but they had received open visas instead — One witness had paid significant sums on different occasions for a promised work visa — Another individual had been promised a work visa for a specific position abroad and had paid a substantial amount — Another witness had been deprived of a considerable sum under the same pretext — All these affected individuals, including the complainant, were from the same district, while the accused, a resident of a different city, had traveled to their district, conducted interviews, and had thus been specifically nominated by the complainant and other private witnesses for the charged offenses — Apart from the oral evidence of the affected individuals, to support the complainant’s version, the Investigating Officer had brought on record sufficient documentary evidence — It had been proven that the accused and his wife operated specific bank accounts into which amounts had been sent from the complainant’s wife’s account — Numerous deposit slips from a bank clearly showed that the complainant’s wife and other affected individuals had deposited millions of rupees into the accounts of the accused and his wife — These were undeniable documentary proofs, obtained through proper channels and brought on record during the investigation, which the accused could not refute — Appeal was dismissed. [2024 CCJ 31 = 2024 PCrLJ 318]