Citation Name: 2024 PLD 584 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD BILAL NAWAZ vs DIRECTOR GENERA

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: 2024 PLD 584 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD BILAL NAWAZ VS DIRECTOR GENERAL, FIA, PUNJAB, LAHORE Ss. 5(1) & 5(5)---anti-Money Laundering act (VII of 2010), Ss. 8, 9 & 25(1)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 4(l)--- Restriction imposed on Bank account---Inquiry and investigation---Petitioner was aggrieved of initiation of inquiry by Federal Investigating agency (FIa) and imposing restrictions on his bank accounts---Validity---Section 550, Cr.P.C. encompassed bank accounts---Since the FIa was competent to exercise powers under S. 550, Cr.P.C., it held the authority to freeze bank accounts or restrict their operation under S. 5(1) of the FIa act, regardless of whether the matter was in the inquiry or investigation stage---However, this would be subject to the condition that there should be some nexus with the alleged offence or that circumstances created suspicion of the commission of any offence---Freezing of accounts affects the right to privacy and the reputation of the account holder---Federal Investigating agency could not arbitrarily freeze bank accounts or keep them frozen indefinitely---Such actions would violate the account holder's constitutional and legal rights---However, these individual rights must be balanced with the duty of the State to combat crime and punish offenders---Whenever the FIa issued a directive restricting an individual's bank account, whether during an inquiry or investigation, it must promptly notify the relevant Magistrate or Court, which would then issue an order in accordance with the law appropriate to the situation and circumstances---In the present case, Respondent No.3 (Inspector, FIa) had debit-blocked the Petitioner's account by exercising the authority under S. 5(5) of the FIa act read with S. 8 of the anti-Money Laundering act---Fact that Respondent No.3 did not register an FIR upon receiving a complaint alleging the commission of a cognizable offence did not hinder the initiation of the investigation---Perusal of the record showed that Respondent No.3 had blatantly disregarded Ss. 8 & 9 of the anti-Money Laundering act in the present case---Investigating Officer did not obtain permission from the competent Court before issuing directives to the Bank concerning the petitioner's account---Investigating Officer did not render findings under S. 9(2) of the anti-Money Laundering act or applied to the Court for an order under S. 9(3) thereof---Investigating Officer did not submit a monthly progress report of the investigation to the Court---Petition was accepted and the limitation placed on the petitioner's bank account by Respondent No.3 was annulled. Citation Name: 2024 PLD 584 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD BILAL NAWAZ VS DIRECTOR GENERAL, FIA, PUNJAB, LAHORE Ss. 8 & 9---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 5(2)---Investigative process---Scope---Restriction imposed on bank account---Petitioner was aggrieved of initiation of inquiry by Federal Investigating Agency (FIA) and imposing restrictions on his bank accounts---Validity---Section 8(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering Act stipulates that an Investigating Officer might, on the basis of a report from the concerned Investigating or Prosecuting Agency, with the prior permission of the Sessions Court having the jurisdiction, provisionally attach such property which he reasonably believes to be the property involved in money laundering for a period not exceeding 180 days from the date of the order---However, the Session Court might grant a further extension for up to 180 days---Section 8(2) states that the Investigating Officer shall, within forty-eight hours immediately after the attachment, forward a copy of the order and the investigating or prosecuting agency's report to the head of the concerned investigating agency in a sealed envelope---Section 8(3) specifies that every order of attachment made under S. 8(1) shall cease to have effect after the expiry of the period specified in that subsection or on the date of the finding made under S. 9(2), whichever is earlier---Section 8(5) mandates that the Investigating Officer who provisionally attached any property under S. 8(1) shall submit a monthly progress report to the Sessions Court regarding the investigation---In the present case the Investigating Officer did not render findings under S. 9(2) of the Anti-Money Laundering Act or applied to the Court for an order under S. 9(3) thereof---Investigating Officer did not submit a monthly progress report of the investigation to the Court---Petition was accepted accordingly and the limitation placed on petitioner's bank account was annulled.

Citation Name: 2024 PLD 584 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD BILAL NAWAZ vs DIRECTOR GENERAL, FIA, PUNJAB, LAHORE Ss — 2024 PLD 584 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PLD