Latest citations/ judgments on cyber crimes law in Pakistan
2016 PLD 318
ADNAN HAFEEZ vs State
S. 497— Electronic Transactions Ordinance (LI of 2002), Ss. 36 & 37— Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420 & 109—cyber crime, cheating and abetment—Bail, grant of—Hacking—Recovery of electronic equipment—Tampering/destroying of evidence, apprehension of—Accused was apprehended red-handed from the office of a travel agency where he was working—From the possession of accused, three laptop computers, mobile phone and one portable internet device were taken into custody by Federal Investigation Agency—Laptop computers were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory from where it was proved that multiple SSL IDs assigned to different travel agents were found in the recovered laptop computers of the accused—Effect—Such SSL IDs could only be used by authorized travel agents but were illegally being accessed by laptops found in possession of accused— Prosecution had collected substantial evidence connecting accused with commission of offence—Apprehension existed that if bail was granted to accused he would tamper with the evidence and even destroy it—Accused was a technical expert and mastermind of a gang who had been hacking IDs of various travel agents—Lead to other co-accused would be destroyed if petitioner was allowed to get in contact with his co- accused and the hectic efforts of Federal Investigation Agency in tracing out the culprits of such serious scam would suffer a serious setback—All business dealings and transactions were done internationally through internet, therefore, cyber crime could not be taken lightly—High Court observed that legislature should consider enhancing sentences for such crimes—Bail was refused in circumstances.
2015 PTD 2401
ALI MANSOOR KHAN vs SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
Ss. 2(3) & 10(1)—Jurisdiction of the Federal Tax Ombudsman—Scope— Maladministration— Fraudulently prepared document—Complaint against unauthorized CNIC access and unilateral issuance of NTN and subsequent amendment therein by the Department— Contention of complainant was that the Regional Tax Office (RTO) issued a National Tax Number (NTN) on his name when he had not submitted any application for the same, and thereafter modified the same on basis of dubious documents-Validity-Objection to the Federal Tax Ombudsman’s jurisdiction in the matter was misconceived as the present matter was much more than a simple case of forgery and certain Departmental functionaries had deliberately violated strict protocols for issuance of NTN and their motivation was wholly suspect, and such actions were contrary to the law and attracted provisions of S.2(3) of the Establishment of the Office of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance, 2000, and violation of prescribed protocols was tantamount to maladministration and placed well within jurisdiction of the Federal Tax Ombudsman-Federal Tax Ombudsman observed that circumstances and highly suspect sequence of events, in the present case, raised many questions and strongly suggested foul play by the PRAL/Department functionaries and there existed a need that the Department take concrete steps to ensure that others were spared such harassment and that fraud perpetuated in the Department due to documents contrived fraudulently, came to an end—Federal Tax Ombudsman recommended that the Department conduct inquiry to determine as to how and by whom defective. NTN certificate was issued in the name of the complainant; and devise fool-proof Standard Operating Procedures with the consultation of the National Response Centre for cyber Crimes (NR3C) wing of the Federal Investigation Agency to stop use of fraudulently prepared documents in the PRAL; and devise a policy to validate all NTNs on the PRAL database through a system of biometric verification-Federal Tax Ombudsman further recommended that copy of the present complaint and all documents be forwarded to FIA for initiating criminal investigation into forgery of complainant’s signature—Complaint was disposed of, accordingly.
2012 PLD 292 SUPREME-COURT
WATAN PARTY vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
Arts. 9, 14, 19, 187 & 184(3)—Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XXXII, Rr.1 & 2 read with O.XXXVI—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Preamble—Constitutional petitions invoking original jurisdiction of Supreme Court, questioning therein the contents of a Memo. published in a newspaper “Financial Times” London, written by respondent on stated allegations and that question of public importance involving petitioners’ fundamental rights under the Constitution had been made out as according to the version of respondent, Memo. was prepared/drafted for the purpose of delivering the same to the Chairman of U.S. Joint Chief of Staff through former U.S. National Security Advisor—Maintainability—Held, petitioners had succeeded in establishing that the issues involved were justiciable and question of public importance with regard to enforcement of fundamental rights, prima facie, under Articles 9, 14 and 19A of the Constitution, had been made out, thus, the petitions under Article 184(3) of the Constitution were maintainable—To delineate measures with a view to ensure enforcement of the said fundamental rights a probe was called for to ascertain the origin, authenticity and purpose of creating/drafting of Memo. for delivering it to Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chief of Staff through former U.S. National Security Advisor thus, in exercise of powers conferred upon the Supreme Court under Article 187 of the Constitution, Order XXXII, Rules 1 and 2 read with Order XXXVI of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 coupled with the principles of Civil Procedure Code, a Commission was appointed, as the due process of law was the entitlement of all the stakeholders, therefore, to ensure probe into the matter in a transparent manner the Commission shall be comprising of (i) Mr. Justice Qazi Faez Isa, Chief Justice of Balochistan High Court (Chairman); Mr. Justice Iqbal Hameed-ur-Rehman, Chief Justice, Islamabad High Court (Member) and (iii) Mr. Justice Mushir Alam, Chief Justice, High Court of Sindh (Member) and Raja Jawwad Abbas Hassan, District & Sessions Judge, Islamabad, was appointed as Secretary to the Commission—Commission shall hold its meetings in the building of Islamabad High Court and shall be exercising all the powers of Judicial Officers for the purpose of carrying out the object mentioned hereinabove and it shall be free to avail services of advocates, experts of forensic science and cyber crimes—All the Federal Secretaries, including Interior Secretary, Secretary Cabinet, Secretary Foreign Affairs; Chief Secretaries of all the Provinces; DG, FIA; Inspector Generals of Police of all the Provinces and Ambassadors of Pakistan in USA and UK, shall provide necessary assistance to the Commission—Government of Pakistan, through Secretary Cabinet Division shall provide logistic support to the Commission, subject to its demands through the Secretary of the Commission—Commission shall be authorized to collect evidence within and outside Pakistan according to prevailing laws on the subject and shall provide full opportunity of hearing to all the parties—Commission was required to complete the task within a period of four weeks after receipt hereof—Reply submitted before the Court by the respondent, inter alia, comprised of certain documents including exchange of e-mails and other communications using the “BlackBerry Messaging Service” commonly known as “BBM” between respondent and the then Ambassador of Pakistan in U.S., who were in constant touch either through BBM, e-mails or voice calling w.e.f. 9th to 12th May, 2011—Said communications formed the most important piece of evidence regarding purported contacts between the two for the purposes of drafting the alleged Memo.—Respondent also claimed that he had electronic/telephonic interactions with the then Ambassador in U.S. on October, 28 and November, 1 2011, therefore, in the interest of justice, it was appropriate to get the confirmation about the veracity and authenticity of said communications from the original company based in Canada being the sole and exclusive custodian of such information—Supreme Court directed the Attorney General for Pakistan, to contact the said Company through Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs for getting confirmation about the authenticity of the said electronic communications exchanged between the two—Such confirmation may be obtained at the earliest and in order to save and protect the forensic evidence and to scrutinize the same it should be produced before the Commission—Forensic evidence was likely to be collected from the company based in Canada, therefore, the High Commission of Pakistan in Canada was also directed to cooperate and assist the Commission as well.