Sharjeel Javed vs State Ss — 2024 MLD 1815 ISLAMABAD

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

Sharjeel Javed VS State Ss. 561-a & 265-K---anti-Money Laundering act (VII of 2010), Ss. 9(1) & 21(2)---Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss. 192 & 192(a)---Notice issued by the authority for investigation---Complaint---Scope---application under S. 265-K, Cr.P.C ,filed by the accused was dismissed by the Trial Court---Validity---Record showed that the trial Court while entertaining the complaint made by the Investigation Officer did not consider the application of law, especially, the penal concept under the anti-Money Laundering act, 2010---Investigation Officer who issued notice under S.9 (1) of the anti-Money Laundering act, 2010, started investigation from date of order of attachment made under S.8(1) on the basis of report in his possession while seeking prior permission of the Court---provisional attachment of properties of the petitioners and the entire mechanism provided in special law i.e. the anti-Money Laundering act, 2010, required prospective operation of SRO No.425(I) /2016 dated 14.05.2016 which provided the powers to deal with the predicate offence referred in Schedule (I) of S.2 (xxvi) for the first time on that particular date i.e. 14.05.2016, therefore, entire proceedings initiated by the Investigation Officer as well as the cognizance taken by the Special Court were defective if seen in context of basic crime which was pointed out in the enquiry under Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, where reference of assessment years were given for the tax year 2012 to 2016 creating the tax demand and even the notice highlighted the tax details for those years of 2014, 2015 and 2016 which were not to be considered in terms of the anti-Money Laundering act,2010, within the scope of S.192/192-a of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001---Hence, serious mistake had been committed by the Investigation Office as well as by the Court by treating the offence of Ss.192/192-a for the period when the same was not prescribed in the Schedule of the anti-Money Laundering act, 2010---Therefore, the act referred in the case and made basis of entire proceedings was not an offence prior to the cut-off date i.e. 14.05.2016 when Ss.192/192-a of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, was not mentioned in the Schedule of predicate offence---Similarly, the jurisdiction exercised by the Investigation Officer as well as by the Special Court was also to be treated outside the purview of law---However, powers of Trial Court under Ss.249-a & 265-K, Cr.P.C, were co-extensive with similar powers of the High Court under S.561-a, Cr.P.C, and proper course was to approach the Trial Court in the first stance, though there was no bar upon the High Court from entertaining any petition in such cases, therefore, at this stage the Court was of the view that the entire action of Investigation Officer as well as cognizance of the Court in terms of S.21 (2) of the anti-Money Laundering act, 2010, including the notice in terms or S.9(1) of the anti-Money Laundering act, 2010, were illegal and beyond the legal authority, hence, criminal appeal was allowed by setting aside the impugned orders---accused/appellants were acquitted accordingly.

Sharjeel Javed vs State Ss — 2024 MLD 1815 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 MLD