Blackmail through Personal Pictures: Supreme Court Declines Applicability of ETO 2002 and PECA 2016.
سائبر بلیک میلنگ کا الزام، مگر قانونی دفعات پوری نہ ہونے پر کیس خارج
🏛️ سپریم کورٹ کا فیصلہ
Criminal Petition No.128 of 2024
Mst. Uzma Mukhtar v. The State & another
فیصلہ مؤرخہ: 24.05.2024
🔍 معاملے کا پس منظر
درخواست گزار (مسز عظمیٰ مختار) نے ایف آئی اے میں درخواست دی کہ ملزم نے ان کی ذاتی تصاویر بغیر اجازت حاصل کر کے واٹس ایپ کے ذریعے بلیک میل کیا۔
اس بنیاد پر FIR No.45/2016 درج ہوئی جس میں درج ذیل دفعات لگائی گئیں:
دفعہ 36 اور 37، Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002
دفعہ 500، 506، 509 PPC
بعد ازاں ٹرائل کے دوران ایف آئی اے کے اسسٹنٹ ڈائریکٹر (لیگل) نے مؤقف اختیار کیا کہ ETO 2002 کی دفعات لاگو نہیں ہوتیں۔
⚖️ ٹرائل کورٹ اور ہائی کورٹ کا مؤقف
PECC کورٹ نے دفعات 36 اور 37 ETO 2002 حذف کر دیں۔
اسلام آباد ہائی کورٹ نے ابتدائی طور پر کیس واپس بھیجا مگر دوبارہ تفصیلی وجوہات کے ساتھ یہی نتیجہ نکالا گیا۔
PECA 2016 کی دفعات (20، 21، 24) لگانے کی درخواست بھی مسترد کر دی گئی کیونکہ:
مبینہ جرم PECA 2016 کے نفاذ (18.08.2016) سے پہلے کا تھا۔
🧠 سپریم کورٹ کا قانونی تجزیہ
1️⃣ PECA 2016 کا اطلاق ممکن نہیں
عدالت نے واضح کیا کہ:
PECA 2016 کا نفاذ 18.08.2016 کو ہوا
مبینہ جرم اس سے ایک سال پہلے کا ہے
آرٹیکل 12 آئین پاکستان کے تحت ماضی کے جرم پر بعد کا قانون لاگو نہیں ہو سکتا
➡️ Retrospective punishment ممنوع ہے
2️⃣ ETO 2002 کی دفعات 36 اور 37 لاگو نہیں ہوتیں
سپریم کورٹ نے دفعات 36 اور 37 کا متن نقل کر کے یہ نتیجہ نکالا کہ:
ملزم نے:
کسی information system تک غیر مجاز رسائی حاصل نہیں کی
کسی سسٹم کو alter / modify / delete / impair نہیں کیا
کسی سسٹم کی operation یا access میں رکاوٹ نہیں ڈالی
➡️ محض ذاتی تصاویر کا غلط استعمال
➡️ ETO 2002 کے دائرہ اختیار میں نہیں آتا
📌 Ratio Decidendi (قانونی اصول)
PECA 2016 کا اطلاق ماضی کے مبینہ جرائم پر نہیں ہو سکتا
ETO 2002 کی دفعات 36 اور 37 صرف information system سے متعلق جرائم پر لاگو ہوتی ہیں، ذاتی تصاویر کے غلط استعمال پر نہیں
✅ حتمی فیصلہ
سپریم کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ:
ٹرائل کورٹ اور ہائی کورٹ کے فیصلے قانون کے مطابق ہیں
کوئی قانونی سقم موجود نہیں
Leave to Appeal مسترد
درخواست خارج
Must read judgement
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
( Appellate Jurisdiction )
Present:
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail
Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi
Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.128 OF 2024
(0n appeal against the order dated 04.12.2023 passed by the
Islamabad High Court, Islamabad, in Criminal Revision No.163/2023)
Mst. Uzma Mukhtar
…
…
Petitioner
Versus
The State thr. Deputy Attorney
…
…
Respondent(s)
General and another
For the petitioner
:
Agha Muhammad Ali Khan, ASC
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR
For the State
:
Mr. Irfan Zia, Addl. PG Pb.
Date of hearing
:
24.05.2024
JUDGMENT
Naeem Akhtar Afghan, J. On the basis of application dated
03.08.2016 (Exh.PE) submitted by the petitioner (Mst. Uzma Mukhtar) to
Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), FIR No.45/2016 was registered on
18.08.2016 with Police Station (PS) FIA, Cyber Crime Circle, Islamabad,
u/s 36 and 37 of Electronic Transactions Ordinance (ETO) 2002 r/w
section 500, 506 and 509 of Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) against respondent
No.2 (accused Muhammad Zain-ul-Abideen Sagheer).
2.
In her application dated 03.08.2016 submitted to FIA, the petitioner
stated that she had a pure relationship with respondent No.2 to turn into a
legitimate one; she has no idea as to how respondent No.2 took her
personal pictures without her consent; respondent No.2 has been
harassing, threatening and blackmailing her for the last one year by
sending her personal pictures on her cell phone through whatsapp; so far
she has given an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to respondent No.2 for keeping
her dignity and honour intact; whenever she shows any kind of resistance,
Crl.P.128/2024
2
respondent No.2 threatens that he will show her absurd/personal picture
to everyone through social media.
3.
After registration of FIR investigation was conducted by FIA and
interim, supplementary as well as final reports u/s 173 Cr.P.C. were
submitted on different dates. The trial proceedings commenced before
learned Judge, Prevention of Electronic Crimes Court, Islamabad, (PECC).
4.
After reading over charge u/s 36 and 37 ETO, 2002 r/w section 500,
506 and 509 PPC to respondent No.2, statements of 09 prosecution
witnesses were recorded at the trial. The statement of respondent No.2 has
also been recorded u/s 342 Cr.P.C. on 02.11.2022.
5.
On the basis of statement made by Assistant Director (Legal) FIA,
about non attraction of section 36 and 37 of ETO 2002, the learned Judge,
PECC deleted section 36 and 37 of ETO 2002 and transferred the case to
the Court of competent jurisdiction vide order dated 17.07.2023
6.
The above order was challenged by the petitioner before Islamabad
High Court by filing Criminal Revision No.121/2023 which was accepted
vide order dated 04.09.2023. After setting aside the order dated
17.07.2023, Islamabad High Court directed the learned Judge PECC to
decide the matter afresh by providing proper opportunity of hearing to the
complainant and accused and to pass a speaking order with reasonings for
non-attraction of section 36 and 37 of ETO.
7.
In the meanwhile, petitioner submitted an application u/s 227
Cr.P.C. for altering the charge and to read over charge to respondent No.2
u/s 20, 21 and 24 of Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (PECA) 2016,
instead of section 36 and 37 ETO 2002 r/w section 500, 506 and 509 PPC.
8.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and learned Assistant
Director (Legal), FIA, the learned Judge PECC concluded vide order dated
23.09.2023 with detailed reasonings that section 36 and 37 of ETO 2002
are not attracted to the facts of the instant case; the proceedings cannot be
continued u/s 54 of PECA 2016 as the provisions of PECA 2016 are also
not attracted in the instant case for the reason that at the time of
commission of alleged offences i.e. one year prior to the application dated
Crl.P.128/2024
3
03.08.2016 submitted by the petitioner to FIA for registration of FIR, PECA
2016 was not in field as it came into force on 18.08.2016.
In view of the above conclusions, after deletion of section 36 and 37
of ETO 2002, learned Judge PECC ordered to place the case file before
learned Sessions Judge (West) Islamabad for its further entrustment to the
court of competent jurisdiction.
9.
The petitioner challenged the order dated 23.09.2023 of learned
Judge PECC before Islamabad High Court by filing Criminal Revision
No.163/2023 which has been dismissed in limine vide order dated
04.12.2023. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant Criminal
Petition for Leave to Appeal.
10.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APG, we
have perused the available record which reveals that assent of the President
of Pakistan was received on 18.08.2016 for promulgation of PECA 2016 and
notification dated 19.08.2016 was published in the Gazette of Pakistan on
22.08.2016. The offences mentioned by the petitioner in her application
dated 03.08.2016 (Exb.PE) were allegedly committed by respondent No.2
since the last year i.e. much prior to promulgation of PECA 2016.
While providing protection against retrospective punishment, Article
12 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 lays down
that no law shall authorize the punishment of a person for an act or
omission that was not punishable by law at the time of the act or omission.
11.
In view of the above it is concluded that both the Courts below have
not committed any illegality in rejecting the application of the petitioner for
altering the charge/reading over the charge to respondent No.2 u/s 20, 21
and 24 of PECA 2016.
12.
Sections 36 and 37 of ETO 2002 read as follows:
“36.
Violation of privacy of information:- Any person who gains or
attempts to gain access to any information system with or without intent to
acquire the information contained therein or to gain knowledge of such
information, whether or not he is aware of the nature or contents of such
information, when he is not authorised to gain access, as aforesaid, shall be
guilty of an offence under this Ordinance punishable with imprisonment of
either description of a term not exceeding seven years, or fine which may
extent to one million rupees, or with both.
Crl.P.128/2024
4
37.
Damage to information system etc:- (1) any person who does or
attempts to do any act with intent to alter, modify, delete, remove, generate,
transmit or store any information through or in any information system
knowingly that he is not authorised to do any of the foregoing, shall be guilty
of any offence under this Ordinance.
(2)
Any person who does or attempts to do any act with intent to impair
the operation of, or prevent or hinder access to any information contained in
any information system, knowingly that he is not authorised to do any of the
foregoing, shall be guilty of an offence under this Ordinance.
(3)
The offences under sub-section (1) and (2) of this section will be
punishable with either description of a term not exceeding seven years or fine
which may extend to one million rupees or with both”
The allegations levelled by the petitioner against respondent No.2 in
her application dated 03-08-2016 (Exh.PE) and the incriminating material
collected during investigation do not attract section 36 and 37 of ETO 2002
as respondent No.2 has neither attempted nor gained access to any
information system with or without intent to acquire the information
contained therein; he has neither attempted nor done any act with intent to
alter, modify, delete, remove, generate, transmit, or store any information
through or in any information system being not authorised to do so; he has
neither attempted nor done any act to impair the operation of any
information system; he has neither attempted nor done any act to prevent
or hinder access to any information contained in any information system.
13.
In view of the above it is concluded that both the Courts below have
not committed any illegality in concluding that section 36 and 37 of ETO
2002 are not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
The above are the reasons of our short order dated 24.05.2024
whereby while refusing leave to appeal, the petition was dismissed.
Judge
Judge
J