Law: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Section: 192,192A

Law: Anti Money Laundering Act, 2020

Section: 3,4,8,25

2025 M L D 454 [Islamabad] Before Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, J The State through Investigation Officer, Director of Intelligence and Investigation IR---Appellant Versus Said Jan Afridi and others---Respondents Criminal Appeal No. 138 of 2023, decided on 12th August, 2024. Anti-Money Laundering Act (VII of 2020)--- ----Ss. 3, 4, 8 & 25---Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX 0f 2001), Ss. 192 & 192-A---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.265-K---Money laundering---Investigation---Predicate offence---Intelligence and Investigation (I&I), Inland Revenue, status of---Appeal against acquittal---During the proceedings of the case, accused moved an application under S.265-K, Cr.P.C, for his acquittal, which was allowed---Validity---As per record, the Court was not in agreement with the mode and manner of initial order of attachment passed by the Trial Court without considering the details and application of law in is particular case rather the Court had mechanically processed the case on the so-called report of Investigating Officer without adverting to the facts that tax authorities had not yet concluded any of the questions in the case, neither threshold of prima facie Rs. ten million unpaid tax was visibly seen---Commissioner Appeal had annulled the amendment proceedings conducted by the Assessing Officer by declaring the same beyond his jurisdiction and all the additions made under S.111(1)(b) of the Ordinance, 2001, were also deleted---Such aspect left nothing in favour of Investigating Officer as well as the Court to proceed and exercise its jurisdiction under Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010---Order impugned had been passed in terms of S.265-K, Cr.P.C and as such there was no cavil to the proposition that powers under S.265-K, Cr.P.C could be exercised at any stage of trial or proceedings---Even otherwise, when Court came to the conclusion at initial stage or middle stage of the proceedings or at the end of the evidence that the charge was groundless or there was no probability of accused being convicted of any offence, even prior to the framing of charge the Court had to pass the order by appreciating the concept of groundless charge---Even suo-moto powers could…