ABDUL SABOOR vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Retrospective effect — 2023 PTD 1434 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

ABDUL SABOOR VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Retrospective effect---Scope---There is no prohibition on the Parliament to make retrospective legislation, particularly when such intention is expressly or impliedly clear from the text of the statute. Ss. 8 & 9---Inquiry and investigation---Non-framing of rules---Effect---Process for inquiry/investigation under Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 and Standard Operating Procedure is expansive and envisages rigorous and intrusive regime that does not warrant any further guidance to investigating officers through rules---Standard Operating Procedures are consistent with the provisions of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and Directorate (I&I) Inland Revenue can frame in-house rules for conducting investigation of offences of money laundering---Rules are neither necessary nor inevitable for carrying out functions of investigating and prosecuting agencies under Ss. 8 & 9 of Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010---Non-framing of rules does not impair functions of investigating officer in any manner. Substantive and procedural law---Scope---Litigant has a vested right in substantive law but no such right exists in procedural law. Ss. 192, 192a, 194 & 199---anti-Money Laundering act (VII of 2010), Ss. 3, 8, 9 & Sched.-I---Compounding of offence---Principle---Predicate offences mentioned in Schedule-I of anti-Money Laundering act, 2010, in relation to Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, are all compoundable---In case an accused compounds predicate offence, the trial of offence of money laundering continues and is decided on its own merits---It is not necessary for both the trials to be held simultaneously. Harmonious construction---Scope---Rule of harmonious construction dictates that the provisions be construed such that as between two or more reasonable constructions of their terms which saves them should prevail---Statue must be read as a whole to ascertain meaning of its various provisions---Courts must interpret offending provisions in such a manner so as to give effect to each of them. S. 9---Call-up notice---Ingredients---Call-up notice must at the bare minimum specify information regarding alleged commission of offence of money laundering and details of property which has allegedly been acquired from proceeds of crime or contravention of any provision of Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010---Notice which does not fulfill such requirements cannot be termed as a valid notice under S.9 of Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010. Rules, framing of---Scope---Where Legislature intends that rules are required to be framed for a certain function under the statute to be performed or carried out, it makes provision for it by requiring it to be done through the prescribed manner. S. 154---First Information Report---Object, purpose and scope---Principal objective of F.I.R. is to set the law in motion for initiation of investigation by police officer for the purpose of collecting evidence relating to crime. S. 4(l)---Investigation---Scope---Investigation of cognizable offence or non-cognizable offence has reference to procedure which does not affect substantive rights of accused. Ss. 8 & 9---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 5(2)---Investigative process---Scope---Investigative process prescribed by provisions of sections 8 and 9 of Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, are closely connected with attachment of property involved in the offence of money laundering---Procedure so provided is distinct and separate that bears no resemblance with the procedure envisaged by Criminal Procedure Code, 1898. S.9---First Information Report, registration of---Scope---Investigating officer is empowered to register FIR against accused person under Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010---Inquiry/investigation can be carried out after registration of FIR under Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, when the person to whom notice under S. 9 of Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, has been issued is not forthcoming in providing information to investigating officer. S. 3, Explanation-II---Predicate offence, commission of---Scope---Mere allegation of commission of predicate offence suffices for registration of FIR and initiation of inquiry/investigation under Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010. S.9(5)---attachment of property---Duration---attachment of property, under S. 9(5) of anti-Money Laundering act, 2010, ceases to have effect if on conclusion of trial of both the offences of money laundering and predicate offence the person concerned is acquitted. S. 21(2)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 173 & 202---Term "complaint"---Scope---Term "complaint" mentioned in S. 21(2) of Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, is not the same complaint as contemplated by S. 202, Cr.P.C.---Such complaint is in the nature of report/challan to be filed by investigating/prosecuting agency in terms of S. 173, Cr.P.C. before appropriate Court. Ss. 192, 192a, 194 & 199---anti-Money Laundering act (VII of 2010), Ss. 2 (xviii), 3, 8, 9 & Schedule-I---Constitution of Pakistan, arts. 12 & 199---Constitutional petition---Money laundering---Investigation---Predicate offence---Directorate of Intelligence and Investigation (I&I), Inland Revenue---Status---Petitioners were aggrieved of investigation of offence of money laundering by Directorate (I&I), Inland Revenue, during proceedings under Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Validity---Conduct of investigation of an offence was an essential part and closely related to procedure---authority which was subsequently added as investigating agency had no bar on its powers and authority to investigate cases in which the offense was committed in the past---Purpose of anti-Money Laundering act, 2010, was to prevent money laundering and to attach/confiscate properties generated from the proceeds of crime which had its genesis in the predicate offence---Commission of predicate offence was prerequisite for proceedings under anti-Money Laundering act, 2010, to commence before the Court---Proceeds of crime could only materialize once a predicate offence was committed---as anti-Money Laundering act, 2010, was a penal statute therefore, it could have no retrospective operation by virtue of art. 12 of the Constitution---any proceedings commenced under anti-Money Laundering act, 2010, could not sustain in respect of transaction which crystallized prior to the introduction of Ss. 192, 192a, 194 & 199 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, as predicate offences through amendment made in Schedule-I of anti-Money Laundering act, 2010---Punishment prescribed for the offence under anti-Money Laundering act, 2010, did not relate to the commission of predicate offence rather it was the offence of money laundering that had been made punishable---Date of commission of predicate offence was not material---Offence of money laundering that could be proceeded must be committed after anti-Money Laundering act, 2010, had come into force or inclusion of predicate offence in Schedule-I to anti-Money Laundering act, 2010---Question whether any person was in possession of any property derived from proceeds of crime was a question of fact ---High Court directed investigating officer to strictly adhere to law laid down by superior courts and declined to interfere in the process of investigation---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

ABDUL SABOOR vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Retrospective effect — 2023 PTD 1434 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PTD