| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 3593 2025 SLD 3593 = 2025 SHC 1968 = 2025 SHC 1982 = 2025 SHC 1983 |
Constitution Petition No.D-2681 of 2025
MR. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD FAISAL KAMAL ALAM MR. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD HASAN (AKBER)
Respondent No.5/Meezan Bank Limited through M/s. Umair Nabi and Furqan Ansari, Advocate.
Respondent No.7/United Bank Limited through Mr. Faiz Durrani, Advocate. Mr. Umair Shah, Inspector FIA, CBC, Karachi.
Petitioner: Rayan Technology Private Limited, through, Mirza Moiz Baig, Advocate Respondents: Federation of Pakistan and others through, Ms. Alizeh Bashir, learned Deputy Attorney General. Respondent No.4/HBL through Mr. Mukesh Kumar Talreja, Advocate.
Law: Federal Investigation Agency Act, (VIII of 1974)
Section: 5(5),5(1)
Law: Anti Money Laundering Act, 2010
Section: 8 & 9
Law: General Clauses Act, 1897
Section: 24-A
Summary:
The petitioner challenged the blocking of its bank accounts by the FIA under section 5 of the FIA Act, 1974, on the grounds that the action was taken without any investigation or written opinion justifying urgency. The court reviewed the statutory provision and prior case law, which emphasized that powers under section 5(5) of the FIA Act to block or seize property without prior order from an appropriate authority could only be exercised in exceptional cases where there is no time to obtain such order, and that such power must be exercised cautiously, with reasons recorded in writing. The court found the respondent FIA acted hastily, without applying its mind or following mandatory procedural requirements, thus declared the blocking notice void and ordered the accounts to be unblocked, while allowing FIA to proceed in accordance with law.
Core Points:
- Petitioner’s bank accounts were blocked by FIA on the day a complaint was lodged, without any investigation or inquiry initiated.
- Section 5(5) of the FIA Act allows blocking property only if a member of FIA forms a written opinion that urgent action is needed and there is no time to get prior seizure orders.
- The respondents failed to demonstrate any written opinion, urgency, or compliance with procedural safeguards.
- Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897 mandates that such power must be exercised reasonably, fairly, with reasons communicated.
- Blocking was held unlawful, and the court ordered unblocking of accounts.
- FIA may continue investigation but must follow due process.
Law and Sections Table:
| Law/Section | Summary/Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974 | |
| Section 5(5) | Permits FIA members to order restraint on property if, in their opinion, the property might be disposed before a formal seizure order is obtained. Requires written opinion and urgency. |
| Section 5(1) | General powers of FIA, but does not override procedural safeguards and requirements in section 5(5). |
| Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 | Sections 8 & 9 require procedural compliance for blocking or debiting bank accounts. |
| General Clauses Act, 1897 | |
| Section 24-A | Powers under any enactment must be exercised reasonably, fairly, justly; reasons must be recorded and communicated. |
JUDGMENT