| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 2401 2016 SLD 2401 2016 PLD 607 |
Sindh High Court
C.Ps. Nos. D-5260 and D-3890 of 2015, decided on 4thJanuary, 2016. Date of hearing: 3rd December, 2015.
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, CHIEF, JUSTICE AND MUHAMMAD, JUNAID GHAFFAR, JUSTICE
Abid S. Zuberi and Ayan Memon for Petitioners.Salman Talib-ud-Din, Additional Attorney General of Pakistan and Asim Mansoor Khan DAG. for
Respondent No. 1.Zahid Jamil for
Respondent No. 3.Salah-ud-Din Gandapur and Shahab Usto for
Respondent No. 4.
C.Ps. Nos. D-5260 and D-3890 of 2015, decided on 4thJanuary, 2016. Date of hearing: 3rd December, 2015.
SAJJAD ALI SHAH, CHIEF, JUSTICE AND MUHAMMAD, JUNAID GHAFFAR, JUSTICE
Abid S. Zuberi and Ayan Memon for Petitioners.Salman Talib-ud-Din, Additional Attorney General of Pakistan and Asim Mansoor Khan DAG. for
Respondent No. 1.Zahid Jamil for
Respondent No. 3.Salah-ud-Din Gandapur and Shahab Usto for
Respondent No. 4.
SHOAIB AHMED SHAIKH AND 2 othersVSFEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY AND others
Law:
Section:
(a) Anti-Money Laundering Act (VII of 2010)--------- ----------S. 8---------Attachment---------Issuance of notice before passing of an order of attachment---------Validity---------Law does not provide for any such issuance of notice and same cannot be claimed as a matter of right. (b) Anti-Money Laundering Act (VII of 2010)--------- ----------Ss. 8 & 9---------Attachment of Bank accounts---------Petitioners were aggrieved of attachment of their accounts by Federal Investigation Agency for purpose of investigation---------Validity---------Mere passing of provisional attachment order under S.8 of Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 did not in any manner prejudice petitioners---------Such order of attachment would loose its efficacy after a maximum period of 90 days, if proceedings were not finalized in accordance with provisions of Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010---------Petitioners were asked to come forward and justify that money lying in provisionally attached accounts was not earned through proceeds of crime---------Investigating Officer after completion of proceedings under S.9 of Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 was further required to approach Court for confirmation of provisional attachment order---------Legislature had provided for a complete mechanism for rederssal of grievance of petitioners---------Petitioner's appearance before High Court was premature in nature as they had bypassed remedy provided in law and invoked constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---------Petitioners could not be allowed to challenge a provisional attachment order which was yet to be confirmed---------Fair opportunity was given to petitioners to present their case and satisfy Investigating Officer as well as Trial Court that money lying in accounts in question had got nothing to do with alleged offence---------Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances. Chaudhry Muhammad Akram Waraich v. Chairman, National Accountability Bureau, Islamabad and others 1010 YLR 2766; Chaoudhry Shujat Hussain v. The State 1995 SCMR 1249; Nisar Ahmed v. The State PLD 1971 SC 174; Light Metal and Rubber Industries Pvt. Limited and others v. Sarfraz Quaudri 2011 CLD 1485; Government of…