Law: Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Act, 2010

Section: 3,42

Law: Constitution of Pakistan 1973

Section: 199

Law: Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972

Section: 3

PLJ 2026 Lahore 88 (DB) Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 (VII of 2010)-- ----Ss. 3 & 42--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199--Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 (XII of 1972), S. 3--Call up notice by FIR--Explanation of financial statement--Challenge to--Writ petition--Jurisdiction--Power of FIR--Call up notice was part of inquiry not punitive--Filed ICA--Grant of interim relief--Harassment--Constitutional validity of Section 3 & 42 of AML--Maintainability--Said appellants had duly apprised this Court that CPLAs were preferred merely as a measure of abundant caution during pendency of these ICAs and upon a decision in their favour--Above contention had legal substance, and these ICAs could not be held to be non-maintainable on this score alone--There is no cavil with well-settled proposition of law (laid down in case of Mst. Karim Bibi supra and followed consistently) that where impugned order/notices in Writ Petitions emanated from proceedings in which remedies of appeal, review, or revision were available against original order, an ICA did not lie in terms of proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 3 of Ordinance--However, primary legal question that required determination in present matters was that where appellants in Constitutional Petitions before learned Single Bench had impugned purely on legal grounds call-up notices, inquiries and FIRs, arising out of proceedings in which statutory remedies of appeal, review, and revision were available against original orders, and had also simultaneously challenged vires of law, whether ICA will be maintainable or not--Admittedly, no original or appellate order had been passed, and challenge is purely to legislative competence of authority and vires of law, which did not fall within domain of appellate or revisional authority--In such circumstances, where no original or appellate order had been passed, and primary relief pertained to constitutionality of statutory provisions, and challenge to notices was merely ancillary and purely on legislative competence, Supreme Court had held an Intra-Court Appeal is maintainable--W here both impugned administrative action, such as call-up notices and FIRs and…