Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898): ----S. 160—Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) inquiry—Legality of Joint Venture (JV) Agreement—Stay of criminal proceedings pending civil litigation—Principle of sub-judice—Binding effect of High Court's decision under Art. 201 of the Constitution—Doctrine of mens rea—Petitioners impugned notices issued by FIA under S.160 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with an inquiry into the legality of a Joint Venture Agreement between Pakistan Television Corporation (PTV), GroupM Pakistan Pvt. Ltd., and ARY Communications Ltd.—Lahore High Court, in Independent Media Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2022 Lahore 288), had already adjudicated that the JV Agreement resulted from a transparent and competitive bidding process and suffered from no legal infirmity—Petitioners argued that FIA’s inquiry was mala fide, aimed at prejudicing the Lahore High Court’s ruling and proceedings pending before the Sindh High Court regarding the JV Agreement’s validity—Held, under Art. 201 of the Constitution, a decision of the High Court on a question of law is binding on subordinate courts and executive functionaries—Doctrine of sub-judice under Art. 204(2)(c) of the Constitution prohibits initiation of proceedings that may prejudice a pending matter before the High Court—FIA inquiry and criminal proceedings against the petitioners stayed, as any determination of criminal liability depended on the outcome of pending civil proceedings before the Lahore and Sindh High Courts. ----Cited Cases: • Muhammad Akbar v. The State (PLD 1968 SC 281) • SW Sugar Mills Ltd v. FBR, Islamabad and Others (2020 PTD 925) • Abdul Ahad v. Amjad Ali and Others (PLD 2006 SC 771) • Misbah ud din Zaigham and Others v. FIA and Others (2021 CLD 906) • Akhlaq Hussain Kayani v. Zafar Iqbal Kiyani and Others (2010 SCMR 1835) • Universal Cables Industries Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2020 Sindh 601) (b) Constitution of Pakistan: ----Art. 204(2)(c)—Contempt of court—Prejudice to pending proceedings—Judicial restraint on executive action—Effect of High Court’s decision on subordinate courts and executive authorities—Held, executive authorities, including FIA and PTV, could not initiate criminal proceedings that would directly or indirectly defeat the Lahore High Court’s ruling regarding the JV Agreement’s legality—Any investigative or prosecutorial action taken by FIA in this matter, while parallel civil proceedings were pending before the High Courts, would violate the doctrine of sub-judice and fall within the ambit of contempt under Art. 204(2)(c) of the Constitution. (c) Administrative Law: ----FIA Act, 1974—Jurisdiction of FIA—Fact-finding committees—Presumption of legality in executive actions—Standard for judicial intervention in investigative proceedings—FIA initiated inquiry No. RE-150/2022 based on the recommendations of a fact-finding committee constituted by PTV—Petitioners contended that the committee lacked impartiality as its members had previously approved the JV Agreement—Held, Courts generally do not interfere in police or FIA investigations unless there is a jurisdictional defect or evident mala fide—However, where an inquiry appears to undermine a judicial determination or pending litigation, the courts may exercise discretion to stay proceedings—FIA was barred from proceeding with any criminal charges against petitioners until resolution of pending civil litigation. (d) Corporate Law—Public Procurement: ----Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 & Public Procurement Rules, 2004—Application to Joint Venture agreements—Determination of legal framework governing procurement processes—Fact-finding committee concluded that the JV Agreement violated the PPRA framework, while PTV’s Board had initially advised that the framework did not apply—Held, Lahore High Court left the question of PPRA framework applicability open but affirmed that the agreement was reached through a lawful and transparent process—FIA’s inquiry could not retroactively re-characterize the agreement as illegal in the absence of an appellate court setting aside the Lahore High Court’s decision. ----Disposition: Petitions allowed. FIA was restrained from framing criminal charges against the petitioners during the pendency of civil proceedings before the Lahore High Court and Sindh High Court. FIA was required to seek permission from the respective High Courts before initiating any further action.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art.199---Freezing of bank accounts during investigation---Financial crime inquiry---Scope of interference---Held, that where freezing of bank accounts is a consequential investigative step connected with an ongoing inquiry/FIR relating to alleged money laundering, unauthorized foreign currency transactions and foreign exchange violations, High Court would not interfere at threshold if the underlying investigation prima facie requires lawful probe by competent authorities. (b) Anti-Money Laundering Act (VII of 2010)---- ----Ss.3 & 4---Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (VII of 1947), Ss.4, 5 & 23---Freezing of bank accounts---Preservation of alleged proceeds of crime---Held, that freezing of bank accounts may be adopted as a preventive investigative measure to preserve alleged proceeds of crime and prevent dissipation or transfer of funds during investigation into complex financial transactions, provided the investigation proceeds strictly in accordance with law. (c) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art.199---Bank accounts frozen without prior hearing---Alleged harassment and coercion---Financial investigation pending---Held, that although freezing of accounts affects financial affairs of a citizen, where such action is connected with an ongoing investigation into serious allegations of money laundering and illicit foreign currency dealings, the Court would not quash or undo the measure merely at preliminary stage, especially where interference would indirectly frustrate the investigation. (d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---- ----S.160---Notice for appearance during inquiry---Ongoing investigation---Held, that issuance of notices during investigation and consequential financial measures are matters falling within the investigative domain, subject to legality, fairness and transparency---Such measures may be questioned if investigation ultimately fails or if continued freezing ceases to be necessary. (e) Anti-Money Laundering Act (VII of 2010)---- ----Investigation into multiple bank accounts---Structured deposits and outward remittances---Freezing orders---Held, that where investigation allegedly revealed substantial financial transactions, structured deposits and outward remittances disproportionate to declared income through multiple bank accounts maintained in local and foreign currencies, freezing of accounts was treated as a consequential step linked with the investigation and not liable to be set aside at that stage. (f) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art.199---Earlier connected writ petition challenging FIR/inquiry---Effect on petition against freezing of accounts---Held, that where legality of underlying investigation had already been examined in a connected writ petition and the Court had held that allegations required investigation, challenge to freezing of accounts could not be decided in isolation; fate of freezing measure was tied to continuation and outcome of the investigation. (g) Anti-Money Laundering Act (VII of 2010)---- ----Freezing of accounts---Continuing necessity---Duty of investigating agency---Held, that investigating agency remains bound to review necessity of continuation of freezing orders; if retention of the measure is no longer required for investigation, accounts may be defrozen in accordance with law. (h) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art.199---Fair and transparent investigation---Safeguard against indefinite freezing---Held, that although freezing of accounts was not interfered with at preliminary stage, investigating agency was directed to conduct investigation strictly in accordance with law and within bounds of fairness and transparency; if investigation did not substantiate allegations or connected proceedings culminated in favour of petitioner, concerned authorities were to defreeze the accounts forthwith. Disposition: Writ petition challenging freezing of petitioner’s bank accounts was disposed of; Court held that freezing appeared to be a consequential step during ongoing investigation into alleged money laundering and foreign exchange offences; investigating agency was left at liberty to review necessity of freezing and directed to defreeze accounts if continued freezing was no longer required, if connected proceedings culminated in petitioner’s favour, or if investigation failed to substantiate allegations.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)––Arts. 9, 10, 10-A, 14 & 19-A––Fundamental rights––Scope––Right to liberty, dignity, and access to information––Petitioner alleged harassment by FIA officials and lack of disclosure regarding purpose of their visit––Held, constitutional rights to life, liberty, and fair trial are fundamental but not absolute; they are subject to reasonable restrictions and must operate within the framework of law––Where formal call-up notice was duly issued and inquiry related to large-scale financial impropriety, FIA’s visit to serve notice and record statement was lawful and within jurisdiction––No evidence of coercion, harassment, or illegal detention found––Petition to that extent infructuous. (b) Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974––Investigation powers––Lawful exercise––Visit by FIA officials to workplace––Held, such visit valid when conducted to effect service of previously issued notice and to record statement; not intended for arrest or detention––Investigative authorities possess legal authority to probe complex financial crimes involving national economic security, provided inquiries remain fair, transparent, and respectful of individual dignity. (c) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898––S. 160 et seq.––Procedure before arrest––Held, no arrest or coercive action may be taken against an individual without compliance with due process including formal notice, disclosure of grounds, and adherence to procedural safeguards––Authorities directed not to initiate any coercive measures against petitioner unless legal prerequisites are fulfilled. (d) Constitutional petition––Maintainability––Relief sought already redressed––Petitioner’s grievance regarding lack of information stood resolved once he joined inquiry and recorded statement––Primary relief rendered infructuous––However, protective direction issued restraining respondents from adopting any coercive action absent legal authorization. Disposition: Petition partly allowed––Directions issued restraining arrest or coercive measures without due process––Petitioner to cooperate with ongoing investigation.