Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 456 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Dr. SHAFI-UR-REHMAN AFRIDI vs State S

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

Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 456 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Dr. SHAFI-UR-REHMAN AFRIDI VS State S. 497---Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance (XVII of 2002), S. 25---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 468 & 471---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5 (2)---Anti-Money Laundering Act (VII of 2010), Ss. 3 & 4---Federal Investigating Agency Act, 1974 (VIII of 1975), S. 3---Cheating, using forged document, misconduct and money laundering---Bail, grant of---Non-schedule offence---Federal Investigating Agency---Jurisdiction---Illegal gratification---Proof---Accused persons were arrested for issuing provisional license to Oil Marketing Company, who sold fossil fuel through its different retail outlets---Validity---Provisions of Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 was not part of scheduled offences and it had provided a complete mechanism for filing of complaint and had overriding effect over other laws---Sentence was provided in S. 25 of Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002, and Federal Investigating Agency Act, 1974 was only dealing with matters of scheduled offences---Federal Investigating Agency had no jurisdiction to deal with such matters and only Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority has jurisdiction---Oil Marketing Company had already paid fine and the matter was still to be decided by Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority---Federal Investigating Agency lodged FIR against accused persons which spoke volumes---While performing functions under Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002, authorities were immune from prosecution---In FIR there was no allegation against accused persons that they received any illegal gratification from any manner---No direct evidence was available on record against accused persons in order to establish that they made tempering in record or committed fraud or deprived any person from his valuable property---Accused persons declared their assets in their income tax returns and nothing was concealed---No cogent evidence was collected by investigating officer that petitioners were involved in commission of offence falling within the purview of Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010---Case against accused persons required further inquiry, who were behind the bars for a period of about three months and were no more required by Federal Investigating Agency for the purpose of further investigation---No useful purpose would be served by keeping accused persons in jail for an indefinite period---Bail was allowed in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2023 PCrLJ 456 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Dr. SHAFI-UR-REHMAN AFRIDI vs State S — 2023 PCrLJ 456 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PCRLJ