KARACHI: Around 1,200 public complaints/inquires related to cybercrimes, identity theft and online harassment remain pending in courts of Karachi’s district East alone for months as investigators belonging to the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) have so far failed to file investigation reports, it emerged on Friday.

Judicial sources told Dawn that as many as 1,200 complaints/inquiries/investigation were lodged by the public at the Cyber Crime Reporting Cell of the FIA in the district East from January 1 till September 1.

The sources said that these complaints lodged under Sections 13, 14, 16 and 26 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 were related to usage of electronic devices for the commissioning of an offence, unauthorised use of (a person’s) identity information, tampering with the communication equipment used in an offence and other offences, punishable under the provisions of the PECA, 2016.

They said that the court of Judicial Magistrate Mukesh Kumar, where such cases were pending trial due to non-submission of investigation reports, had been issuing directives to the additional director of the Cyber Crime Reporting Centre to ask the investigating officers to submit the reports so that the rising number of the cases could be decided.

A judicial magistrate summons a senior FIA official for deliberate defiance of court orders tomorrow

“However, no action had been taken by the additional director of the Cyber Crime Reporting Cell-Karachi to ensure submission of the investigation reports so that these cases could be decided,” said a source.

Therefore, recently JM Kumar had summoned the FIA official for Oct 14 along with a written explanation about the delay.

No response since July 16

A court’s letter, a copy of which is available with Dawn, said that a series of letters were written to the office of the additional director of the Cyber Crime Reporting Centre of the FIA in which 30 days were granted to the then circle in-charge to file report.

As the one-month time began on July 16 and elapsed on Aug 16, the incumbent additional director personally appeared in court and requested for seven more days to comply with the court’s directives, but neither any report was filed, nor any intimation was sent to the court, said the letter.

The judge said no report was being submitted to the court in routine regarding the progress of complaints/enquiries/investigations registered under the Cyber Crime Complaint Registration at the Cyber Crime Reporting Centre.

The judge noted that according to sub-rule 3 of Rule 7 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Investigation Rules, 2018 an IO must have to submit an investigation report within 60 days of the registration of a case.

He added under sub-rule 4 and 5 a case is to be registered if cognizable offence is made out, while in case of non-cognizable offence, the matter is to be reported to the court concerned “herein this court” for seeking permission for investigation in terms of Section 155 of the criminal procedure code.

“It has regularly been observed that no report in respect of sub-rule 4 or 5 of the Rule 7 is being forwarded to this court and it has come to knowledge of the undersigned that there are almost 1,200 enquiries pending for the investigation reports,” the judge’s letter said.

The court recalled that the circle in charge was directed to submit a complete report regarding the complaints/enquiries/investigation pertaining to the district East along with its status/stage of investigation and name of the IO from Jan 1 till the date on or before Sept 1, but as already said, no report was furnished.

Therefore, a show-cause notice was issued to the circle in charge for non-submission of reports, but he did not bother to submit the requisite report. Subsequently, the court office was directed to register a direct complaint against the circle in charge for disobedience of the lawful directions of the court and intentional failure to submit the report.

“Now therefore, you being superior officer and supervisor of the Cyber Crime Reporting Centre is equally responsible in terms of the Section 4(12) of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Rules, 2017 read with the Section 551 of the Criminal Procedure Code in respect of the delinquent act, carelessness and deliberate defiance of your sub-ordinates,” the court ruled.

The magistrate directed the additional director to personally appear in court on Oct 14 and furnish a written explanation as to why he might not be proceeded against for defying the court’s directives.

Published in Dawn, October 13th, 2021