HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
CP No.775 of 2009
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Order with signature of Judge
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Katcha Peshi
Notice issued to respondent No.3 through bailiff as parawaise comments filed as flag.
----------------------------------
Date of hearing 26.11.2009
Mr. Fiaz Hussain Shah, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rizwan Dodani, Standing Counsel a/w SI SLK Shahbaz.
>><<
Petitioner Mohammad Hanif Moosani through this petition has prayed has under:-
“In view of the facts and grounds enumerated herein above, it is respectfully prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to issue show cause notices to Respondents against their illegal and unlawful actions for harassment and threats to the Petitioner for implication in false case and encroaching Petitioner’s work place at Sher Shah Karachi and further be pleased to pass appropriate orders as deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.”
The circumstances which compelled the Petitioner to prefer the present Constitutional Petition are that an FIR was registered at Federal Investigation Agency, Crime Circle, Saddar, Karachi on 20-10-2009 about 16.05 hours by the complainant Tahir Ilyas, Anti Piracy Officer of M/s Oxford University Press, Karachi stating therein are reproduced as under:-
“I would like to bring to your notice the rampant piracy of above mentioned book for which Oxford University Press Pakistan (OUPP) holds the power of attorney issued by the author Mr. Jaswant Singh (Ex-Foreign Minister, India) who is the copyright owner of the said book. This power of Attorney authorizes and grants the publisher Ms. Ameena Saiyid of Oxford University Press, or her representatives to take all necessary steps required under the law in Pakistan to prevent infringement of copyright. Pirated or unauthorized versions of the said books are being openly stocked and sold on large scale by the following bookseller in Karachi.
Muhammad Shoaib, Sana Publication, Rinchore Line, Karachi Oxford University Press is a branch of Oxford University Press UK and is engaged in the development and printing of books in Pakistan. OUPP has the legal right to print and distribute the said book. No one other than OUPP has the legal right to print and distribute the said book in Pakistan.”
Learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the FIR but Deputy Director, Crime Circle of the FIA illegally and without lawful authority harassing the petitioner and threatened for false implication in the case. He further stated that respondents illegally and without lawful authority and in absence of petitioner broke open the lock and entered into premises and after conducting search /inspection have put their own locks on the premises. He further contended that entrance of the investigation officer was made without search warrant and it has been trespassed by the respondents hence it is a case of transgression of authority. He lastly argued that despite the fact no incriminating article was available, even then the respondent illegally encroached upon the work place of the petitioner.
On the other hand Mr. Rizwan Durrani standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents has contested the Petition on the ground that no harassment is being caused to the Petitioner; the action taken by the Respondents is within the four corners of law; once the charge sheet has already been submitted before the concerned Court of Law and cognizance has been taken by it, the Petitioner cannot call in question the merits of that case under the Constitutional Petition, hence the same may be dismissed.
I have heard both the learned counsels at some length and have gone through the material available before me. As regards the prayer of the Petitioner to the extent of causing harassment to him is concerned, the Respondents are directed not to harass the Petitioner and action, if any, must be taken in accordance with law.
Secondly the learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that the work place of the Petitioner was illegally and unlawfully encroached upon by the Respondents and for their such illegal and unlawful action, show cause notices may be issued against them. I have gone through the reply submitted by Respondent No.3, perusal of which reveals that the charge sheet of the case has been submitted on 03.11.2009 before the concerned Judicial Magistrate. However, according to Respondent reasons as regards the role of the Petitioner as well as reasons for sealing the place has been narrated in detail. In reply it has also been submitted that although on 02.11.2009 the Petitioner has been granted pre-arrest bail from the concerned Judicial Magistrate, but still he is not even joining the investigation.
Therefore, keeping in view the above circumstances, when a charge sheet has already been submitted before the concerned Judicial Magistrate, and apparently the cognizance of the offence has been taken by him, it would not be appropriate to give any finding on merits of the case, which may prejudice the case of either party. Hence remaining prayer of the Petitioner merits no consideration, consequently, the same is not allowed.
In view of the above position, the Petition stands disposed of.
Judge.