MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs DIRECTOR GENERAL, FEDERAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY, ISLAMABAD Special and general law

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE VS DIRECTOR GENERAL, FEDERAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY, ISLAMABAD Special and general law---Scope---Special provision overrides general provision and special enactment prevails over general enactment---Special law dealing with specific matter provides special procedure, therefore, special procedure in such matter has to be followed as the same has not been provided under general law---Recourse to general law is permissible when special law is silent on particular point, except where provision of general law is inconsistent with provision of special law---Special law is to be applied to a particular case on the basis of special jurisdiction envisaged in that particular law and provisions of general law stand displaced. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 38 ISLAMABADBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE VS DIRECTOR GENERAL, FEDERAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY, ISLAMABAD S. 4---Money laundering---Object, purpose and scope---Special need has been catered through Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 where subsequent conversion of crime proceeds has been given different meaning by the Legislature---All courts have to apply legislative intent in its natural way while considering legislative purpose as to why particular enactment was enacted by the Legislature---Legislature considered existing crimes and to correct some defects in existing laws, as in majority of cases proceeds of crime are converted / transferred in different formations in and outside the country or converted into the use which cannot be restored to its original state, in that particular situation---General law was silent, therefore, Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 has filled in the gap in specialized need concept where legislature has promulgated new law to handle the situation. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 38 ISLAMABADBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE VS DIRECTOR GENERAL, FEDERAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY, ISLAMABAD Ss. 4 & 9---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 464, 468, 471 & 473---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Quashing of second FIR---Money laundering, cheating, forgery, using forged documents and misconduct---Petitioner/accused was aggrieved of registration of second FIR under S. 4 of Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, on same facts---Petitioner/accused sought quashing of second FIR---Validity---Investigating officer in special crime was equipped with authority to attach any property on the basis of report in his possession received from concerned prosecuting agency or with prior permission of Court, if he reasonably believed that property involved in money laundering for a period not exceeding 180 days from the date of order---Even investigation mechanism was separately settled in S. 9 of Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010---Only those cases could be quashed, from which no offence was made out from bare reading of FIR or where there was no legal authority for registration of a criminal case or where registration of FIR was based upon mala fide and considered to be abuse of process of law and/or where no other alternate remedy was provided to deal with the situation raised in any criminal case---All such principles were not applicable in cases pertaining to Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, as money laundering was a distinct offence---Such cases required thorough probe and investigation qua predicate offences or property or proceeds of crime or property obtained by accused persons for which they had to discharge burden under Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010---High Court declined to quash second FIR as ground raised by petitioner for quashing of second FIR was not legally justiciable nor very registration of subsequent FIR under Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 was contrary to principles laid down by Supreme Court--- Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 38 ISLAMABADBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE VS DIRECTOR GENERAL, FEDERAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY, ISLAMABAD Words, meaning of---Principle---When language is unambiguous and statute's meaning is clear, as a result statute must be accorded and clear meaning should be considered without any deviation and no departure is to be applied in any manner.

MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE vs DIRECTOR GENERAL, FEDERAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY, ISLAMABAD Special and general law — 2023 PCrLJ 38 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PCRLJ