Ayan Ali permitted by the Supreme Court to go abroad:Justice has been served

[VCheng]

Sndc
and just like Zardari and recently NS?

Neither Zardari or NS are under trial, unlike Gen Musharraf and Ayan Ali. My earlier comparison was correct.

 

[Musafir117]

Neither Zardari or NS are under trial, unlike Gen Musharraf and Ayan Ali. My earlier comparison was correct.

What's the difference if under trial or not the Mushraff and AYAN both granted permission by honorable justice department, Zardari run out to save his axx and same for Nawaz isn't? Short story treatment in abroad = save shaky axxes.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

10 Carore fine pay kiya hai , honest model ni

 

[Guynextdoor2]

I feel happy . Justice for Ayan!!

 

[Dubious]

and just like Zardari and recently NS?

Both brag that they made hospitals and improved health care but none ever use this improved health care and yet people run to save these blood suckers' ***!

 

[IceBreaker]

Look guys, she is obviously going abroad for "treatment", just like General Musharraf.

Some plastic surgeries I believe, Don't make me mention the place

 

[VCheng]

Some plastic surgeries I believe, Don't make me mention the place

Medical procedures, one and all.

 

[IceBreaker]

Medical procedures, one and all.

Lol

 

[Emmie]

Detailed judgement if anyone want to read.
http://www.supremecourt.gov.pk/web/user_files/File/C.P._781_2016.pdf

 

[Dubious]

Detailed judgement if anyone want to read.
http://www.supremecourt.gov.pk/web/user_files/File/C.P._781_2016.pdf

Did I read that right: mere pendency of a criminal case cannot furnish a justification for prohibiting the movement of any citizen in contravention of the provisions contained in Article 15 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan

WTH? you are being investigated and you think you should be given right to leave the country? And countries that allow such trash in then a decade later cry that a Pakistani descent did this and that...well hello..

Seriously which child wrote this and which idiotic judge allowed it? SC my foot even a layman can see this is BS!

Respondent No. 1, no doubt, has been charged in a case mentioned above which is still pending adjudication in the competent Court of law. But mere pendency of a criminal case cannot furnish a justification for prohibiting her movement. It has never been the case of the petitioners that the respondent is involved in any of the cases listed in Rule 2 of the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Rules, 2010 in general or Rule 2(1)(b) in particular, in as much as she has not been charged to have embezzled a large government’s funds or committed institutional fraud. In the absence of any such allegations, we don’t think the respondent’s movement could be prohibited under the Ordinance or the Rules mentioned above. We, however, don’t agree with the argument of the learned Sr. ASC for the respondent that remedy by way of review is inadequate or illusory because such argument would tend to defeat the letter and spirit of Section 3 of the Ordinance. Such argument would also tend to defeat the letter and spirit of Article 199 of the Constitution which provides that “a High Court may, if it is satisfied that no other adequate remedy is provided by law, on the application of any aggrieved party, make an order.” The words used in the Article cannot be lightly ignored or overlooked. Though we don’t feel inclined to recall and rescind the relief granted to the respondent by the High Court on this score at this stage, when we don’t see any tenable ground for prohibiting the movement of the respondent, all the same we would not approve of bypassing a forum provided by law.

6. The apprehension of the learned ASC for the petitioners that where the respondent has been charged for committing serious offences as mentioned above, removal of her name from ECL would amount to letting her off for good, is misconceived as despite removal of her name from ECL, her attendance could still be enforced or dispensed with by the Trial Court in conformity with the relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C.

 

[Emmie]

Did I read that right: mere pendency of a criminal case cannot furnish a justification for prohibiting the movement of any citizen in contravention of the provisions contained in Article 15 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan

WTH? you are being investigated and you think you should be given right to leave the country? And countries that allow such trash in then a decade later cry that a Pakistani descent did this and that...well hello..

Seriously which child wrote this and which idiotic judge allowed it? SC my foot even a layman can see this is BS!

Respondent No. 1, no doubt, has been charged in a case mentioned above which is still pending adjudication in the competent Court of law. But mere pendency of a criminal case cannot furnish a justification for prohibiting her movement. It has never been the case of the petitioners that the respondent is involved in any of the cases listed in Rule 2 of the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Rules, 2010 in general or Rule 2(1)(b) in particular, in as much as she has not been charged to have embezzled a large government’s funds or committed institutional fraud. In the absence of any such allegations, we don’t think the respondent’s movement could be prohibited under the Ordinance or the Rules mentioned above. We, however, don’t agree with the argument of the learned Sr. ASC for the respondent that remedy by way of review is inadequate or illusory because such argument would tend to defeat the letter and spirit of Section 3 of the Ordinance. Such argument would also tend to defeat the letter and spirit of Article 199 of the Constitution which provides that “a High Court may, if it is satisfied that no other adequate remedy is provided by law, on the application of any aggrieved party, make an order.” The words used in the Article cannot be lightly ignored or overlooked. Though we don’t feel inclined to recall and rescind the relief granted to the respondent by the High Court on this score at this stage, when we don’t see any tenable ground for prohibiting the movement of the respondent, all the same we would not approve of bypassing a forum provided by law.

6. The apprehension of the learned ASC for the petitioners that where the respondent has been charged for committing serious offences as mentioned above, removal of her name from ECL would amount to letting her off for good, is misconceived as despite removal of her name from ECL, her attendance could still be enforced or dispensed with by the Trial Court in conformity with the relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C.

The grounds that petitioners presented were frail in my opinion. I actually won't blame much to these counsels, criminal prosecution, the basic case, is frail. Ayyan Ali was never indicted properly, prosecution took their time to institute a weakest case. The counsels for the petitioner in this petition failed to prove that Ayyan's name in control list was lawfully justified, didn't argue to relate nature of her crime to the rules passed for exit control list all because of faulty indictment. The charges she is charged with aren't enough to put her name in control list. This is what they had to argue, seems more moral and less legal.

The learned ASC for the petitioners contended that where the respondent is charged under Section 156(1)(viii) read with Section 2(s)(ii) of Customs Act, Section 8 of FER Act and Section 3(1) of Import and Export (Control) Act, 1950, removal of her name from the ECL would amount to letting her off for good notwithstanding the case against her is still pending in the Customs Court. The learned ASC next contended that where Section 3 of the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981 provided alternate remedy by way of review, resort could not be had to the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The learned ASC next contended that it is the prerogative of the Government to place the name of any person on the ECL if he or she is involved in corruption and misuse of power and authority causing loss to the government’s funds or property; economic crimes where large government’s funds have been embezzled or institutional frauds have been committed; acts of terrorism or its conspiracy, heinous crimes threatening national security; case of key directors of a firm, in default of tax or liabilities of not less than ten million rupees; case of two or more key or main directors of a firm, in default of loan or liabilities exceeding one hundred million rupees; any case in which his or her name has been forwarded by the Registrar of a High Court, Supreme Court of Pakistan or Banking Court; or drug trafficking, therefore, the High Court could not have interfered therewith.

This is what the court had to observe and rule.

Respondent No. 1, no doubt, has been charged in a case mentioned above which is still pending adjudication in the competent Court of law. But mere pendency of a criminal case cannot furnish a justification for prohibiting her movement. It has never been the case of the petitioners that the respondent is involved in any of the cases listed in Rule 2 of the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Rules, 2010 in general or Rule 2(1)(b) in particular, inasmuch as she has not been charged to have embezzled a large government’s funds or committed institutional fraud. In the absence of any such allegations, we don’t think the respondent’s movement could be prohibited under the Ordinance or the Rules mentioned above. We, however, don’t agree with the argument of the learned Sr. ASC for the respondent that remedy by way of review is inadequate or illusory because such argument would tend to defeat the letter and spirit of Section 3 of the Ordinance. Such argument would also tend to defeat the letter and spirit of Article 199 of the Constitution which provides that “a High Court may, if it is satisfied that no other adequate remedy is provided by law, on the application of any aggrieved party, make an order.” The words used in the Article cannot be lightly ignored or overlooked. Though we don’t feel inclined to recall and rescind the relief granted to the respondent by the High Court on this score at this stage, when we don’t see any tenable ground for prohibiting the movement of the respondent, all the same we would not approve of bypassing a forum provided by law.

 

[Dubious]

The grounds that petitioners presented were frail in my opinion. I actually won't blame much to these counsels, criminal prosecution, the basic case, is frail. Ayyan Ali was never indicted properly, prosecution took their time to institute a weakest case. The counsels for the petitioner in this petition failed to prove that Ayyan's name in control list was lawfully justified, didn't argue to relate nature of her crime to the rules passed for exit control list all because of faulty indictment. The charges she is charged with aren't enough to put her name in control list. This is what they had to argue, seems more moral and less legal.

The learned ASC for the petitioners contended that where the respondent is charged under Section 156(1)(viii) read with Section 2(s)(ii) of Customs Act, Section 8 of FER Act and Section 3(1) of Import and Export (Control) Act, 1950, removal of her name from the ECL would amount to letting her off for good notwithstanding the case against her is still pending in the Customs Court. The learned ASC next contended that where Section 3 of the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981 provided alternate remedy by way of review, resort could not be had to the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The learned ASC next contended that it is the prerogative of the Government to place the name of any person on the ECL if he or she is involved in corruption and misuse of power and authority causing loss to the government’s funds or property; economic crimes where large government’s funds have been embezzled or institutional frauds have been committed; acts of terrorism or its conspiracy, heinous crimes threatening national security; case of key directors of a firm, in default of tax or liabilities of not less than ten million rupees; case of two or more key or main directors of a firm, in default of loan or liabilities exceeding one hundred million rupees; any case in which his or her name has been forwarded by the Registrar of a High Court, Supreme Court of Pakistan or Banking Court; or drug trafficking, therefore, the High Court could not have interfered therewith.

This is what the court had to observe and rule.

Respondent No. 1, no doubt, has been charged in a case mentioned above which is still pending adjudication in the competent Court of law. But mere pendency of a criminal case cannot furnish a justification for prohibiting her movement. It has never been the case of the petitioners that the respondent is involved in any of the cases listed in Rule 2 of the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Rules, 2010 in general or Rule 2(1)(b) in particular, inasmuch as she has not been charged to have embezzled a large government’s funds or committed institutional fraud. In the absence of any such allegations, we don’t think the respondent’s movement could be prohibited under the Ordinance or the Rules mentioned above. We, however, don’t agree with the argument of the learned Sr. ASC for the respondent that remedy by way of review is inadequate or illusory because such argument would tend to defeat the letter and spirit of Section 3 of the Ordinance. Such argument would also tend to defeat the letter and spirit of Article 199 of the Constitution which provides that “a High Court may, if it is satisfied that no other adequate remedy is provided by law, on the application of any aggrieved party, make an order.” The words used in the Article cannot be lightly ignored or overlooked. Though we don’t feel inclined to recall and rescind the relief granted to the respondent by the High Court on this score at this stage, when we don’t see any tenable ground for prohibiting the movement of the respondent, all the same we would not approve of bypassing a forum provided by law.

But isnt a suspect in an active investigation never allowed to leave the country no matter what the crime...Esp now since govt is imposing tax and all!

 

[Emmie]

But isnt a suspect in an active investigation never allowed to leave the country no matter what the crime...Esp now since govt is imposing tax and all!

True, investigation agencies can restrict the movement during the process of investigation but Miss Ali had been indicted, now that also means there's no active investigation going on.

 

[Dubious]

True, investigation agencies can restrict the movement during the process of investigation but Miss Ali had been indicted, now that also means there's no active investigation going on.

There isnt? Aywien media waloun nay ....Why isnt there? The money found for which she went to jail was what? Imaginary?

 

[Emmie]

There isnt? Aywien media waloun nay ....Why isnt there? The money found for which she went to jail was what? Imaginary?

Welcome to Pakistan!