2025 PCrLJ 1434

Malik Asif Noon VS FIA Islamabad

Petitioner: Malik Asif Noon VS Respondent: FIA IslamabadHonorable Justice Mohsin Akhtar KayaniMuhammad Ilyas Siddiqui,Ms. Kanz-us-Saadat Siddiqui and Umder Arslan

Court: Islamabad High Court

Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

2025 P Cr. L J 1434 [Islamabad] Before Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, J Malik Asif Noon and aother---Petitioners Versus FIA Islamabad and 2 others---Respondents Writ Petitions Nos. 3563 and 3564 of 2024, decided on 30th April, 2025. Anti-Money Laundering Act (VII of 2010) --- --- Ss. 3 & 4---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 154---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Quashing of FIR---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---Scope---Petitioner/accused sought quashing of FIR by invoking constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---Validity---Allegations against the petitioners were that they caused huge loss to national exchequer---As per record, Show Cause Notices were served to the accused on 26.09.2024 and reminder of show cause notice was dispatched on 02.01.2025, however, till date the accused had not submitted their reply of show cause notice---Incomplete challan for both the FIRs had already been submitted in Trial Court---Report of Investigation Officer submitted contained the details of the petitioners'bank account details and their property details---In view of the said background, it was prima facie clear that both the petitioners had received a substantial amount in excess of their legitimate share---Despite being well aware that they had already received their lawful entitlement, they still accepted additional payments from the CDA in connivance with other co-accused, which they were not legally authorized to receive---However, the primary question raised by the petitioners pertained to S.9 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, wherein it was claimed that the petitioners were not given a proper opportunity of hearing, as they had not submitted a reply to the notice issued under S.9 of the Act, 2010---Report of FIA was silent regarding the purpose of service of notice and the procedural details required to be fallowed under S.9 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010---However, that could not be considered as a ground for quashing of FIR---Answer, therefore, was in the negative, as the report already appended in the case prima facie provided an overview that certain properties were in the names of the petitioners, who had received certain payments beyond their legitimate share after the acquisition of the property by the CDA---At that stage, petitioners had not rendered any explanation regarding the source of income from which the residential properties were purchased, nor had it been clarified what their entitled share was in the land acquired by the CDA---Furthermore, no information had been provided to counter the allegation of overpayment received by the petitioners from the CDA---Therefore, in the absence of such information, which was also required to be collected by the Investigating Officer under S.9 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, no case for quashing of FIR was made out---Issuance of notice was intended to provide the petitioners/accused an opportunity to explain the circumstances under which they received amounts beyond their legitimate share, as notified in the Qabzal Wasool---Onus was upon petitioners to absolve themselves of the said criminal liability---Therefore, the petitioners could not be given a premium for failing to respond to the notices issued by the Enquiry Officer under the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010---Thus, the case presented by the petitioners before the High Court seeking the quashing of the FIR was not substantiated in any manner---Petitioners had failed to demonstrate any illegality or mala fide intent on the part of the investigating agency for registration of these two FIRs---There was no indication of abuse of the legal process, nor had the petitioners claimed that no alternate remedy was available to them---Both the petitions were dismissed, in circumstances. Ahmad Nadeem v. Chairman, Arbitration Council 1991 MLD 1198;FGEHA through DG Islamabad v. Ednan Syed and others PLD 2025 SC 11; Chairman NAB v. Nasar Ullah PLD 2022 SC 497; Attock Gen. Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner (Audit), Large Taxpayer Unit, Islamabad 2019 MLD 870; WAK Limited, Lahore v. Customs, Central Excise and Sales Taxs Appellate Tribunal 2018 PTD 253; Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Jahangir Khan Tareen 2022 SCMR 92; Amjad Mustafa Malik v. Director General, National Accountability Bureau and 4 others PLD 2021 Isl. 266; Director General, FIA v. Kamran Iqbal 2016 SCMR 447 and Muhammad Rafique v. Director General, Federal Investigation Agency, Islamabad 2023 PCr.LJ 38 and Sharjeel Javed v. The State 2024 MLD 1815 rel. Muhammad Ilyas Siddiqui for Petitioners. Ms. Kanz-us-Saadat Siddiqui, D.A.G. and Umder Arslan, A.D, F.I.A. for Respondents. Assisted by Ms. Aymen Azeem, Law Clerk, Islamabad High Court. Date of hearing: 15th April, 2025. Judgment Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, J.---Through this single judgment I intend to decide, both the captioned writ petitions having common question of law and facts. 2. Through W.P No.3563-2024, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR No.06, dated 20.08.2024, under Sections 3/4 of Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, P.S F.I.A, AMLA, Islamabad. 3. Though W.P No.3564-2024, the petitioner has prayed for aquashing of FIR No.05, dated 20.08.2024, under Sections 3/4 of Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, P.S F.I.A, AMLA, Islamabad. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners were granted post-arrest bail in these cases through Crl. Misc. No. 1796-B-2024 and Crl. Misc. No. 1797-B-2024, vide order dated 18.10.2024. The petitioners were already accused in case FIR No. 08/2024 dated 06.02.2024 under Sections 109, 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477-A/3 P.P.Cread with Section 5(2) of the 1947 PCA, registered in the F.I.A Corporate Crime Circle, Islamabad, wherein they have already been granted post-arrest bail by this Court vide orders dated 27.03.2024 and 17.04.2024, respectively. It has further been contended that very registration of the second FIR is not maintainable, as the procedure prescribed under Section 9 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 has not been adhered to, and the petitioners have not been provided due opportunity to explain their point of view with respect to the notice under Section 9 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010. 5. Conversely, the learned DAG, along with the Investigating Officer, F.I.A contends that challan has already been submitted in the Court and the proceeds of the crime have been identified. The petitioners have received compensation beyond their legitimate share, despite having already received compensation from the CDA and additional payments were received in connivance with the Accounts Officer (L and R), CDA, as well as with the help of the ex-Cashier, CDA, therepy hereby causing a loss to the national exchequer. It has further been contended that since the challan has been submitted in the Court, the petitioners' claim for quashing of the FIR is not maintainable, as an alternate remedy is available to the petitioners, which could be availed before the competent forum. 6. Arguments heard and record perused. 7. Perusal of record reflects that FIR No.05/2024 and FIR No.06/2024 were registered after concluding enquiry No.34/2024 FIA AMLC Islamabad. RE 34/2024 was initiated upon referral of FIA Corporate Crime Circle Islamabad to initiate Money laundering proceedings against the accused in FIR 08/24 registered in FIA CCC ISB. During the investigating of FIR 08/24 FIA CCC ISB, it transpired that the accused Malik Noman Noon and Malik Asif Noon in connivance of Muhammad Rafique Account Officer L&R Directorate CDA, Ashiq Hussain Shaad Account Officer L&R Directorate and Zeeshan Majeed Bhatti ex-cashier L&R Directorate CDA Islamabad had fraudulently drawn excess payment of Rs. 192,277,192/-causing loss to national exchequer. The fraudsters in collusion with each other replaced the pages of Qabzal Wasool (Acquaintance Roll) where already issued payment cheques were entered to release the excess payments in the name of claimants (accused). The accused changed the amounts in cheques by changing or adding the numerical numbers of payment amount in cheques. 8. As per CDA Patwari Report, CDA acquired land for the development of Sector H-16 and I-17 Islamabad vide CDA Award dated 15.01.2009. CDA made payments of compensation to legitimate affectees at the rate of Rs.830,000/- per kanal. As per report CDA acquired 21 Kanal and 14 Marla from Malik Noman Noon and acquired 21 Kanal and 14 Marla from Malik Asif Noon. And the total compensation payable to them was Rs. 18,026,660/- each. 9. As Per CDA Accounts Officer report, accused Malik Noman received Rs. 168,241,112/- from CDA through 18 cheques, therefore, the accused received an excess payment of Rs.150,214,452/-. Accused Malik Asif Noon received payment of Rs.60,083,401/- from CDA through 10 cheques, therefore, the accused received an excess payment of Rs.42,056,741/-. 10. The accused Malik Noman Noon and Malik Asif Noon were arrested on 26.09.2024. Subsequently they were granted bail by the Honorable Islamabad High Court. Show-Cause Notices were served to the accused on 26.09.2024 and reminder of show-cause notice was dispatched on 02.01.2025, however, till date the accused have not submitted their reply of show-cause notice. Incomplete challan for FIR 05/24 and FIR 06/24 have already been submitted in trial Court. The report I.O submitted contains the details of the petitioners Bank account details and their property details. The relevant except of the report is produced as under: The accused Malik Noman Noon with active connivance of CDA Officials received an excess payment of Rs. 150,214,452/- causing huge loss to national exchequer. These amounts were parked in his multiple accounts: i. Allied Bank Limited Account #0010025689250042 ii. Albaraka Bank Account#0120565885010 iii. Faysal Bank Limited Account#0267150000002454 As per CDA patwari and CDA Accounts Officer report break down of payments made to accused Malik Noman is as under:

Sr#

Qabzal Wasool No.

Actual Amount

Amount Paid

Over Payment

Cheque

Date

162/180

1,628,234.00

5609

14/09/2013

271

4,015,125.00

181391

22/07/2019

1497

817,445.00

181392

22/07/2019

1263

5.902,710.00

8,902,710.00

3,00,000.00

181406

20/09/2019

951

1,756,937.00

9,756,987.00

8,000,000.00

181414

13/01/2020

306

3,800,958.00

8,800,968.00

5,000,000.00

181416

13/01/2020

1337

105,191.00

5,105,191.00

5,000,000.000

247621

13/01/2020

40,125,313.00

313182

27/06/2022

4,150,000.0

4,150,000.00

08/02/2021

5,902,710.00

245012

12/05/2021

2,474,432.00

2,474,434.00

248025

20/05/2021

5,700,015.00

248026

20/05/2021

9,587,184.00

248445

06/06/2021

34,761,051.00

242030

18/06/2021

9,756,987.00

31367

22/06/2022

3,887,167.00

31369

22/06/2022

8,563,609.00

313173

22/06/2022

4,305,984.00

247797

10/02/2021

Total

18,026,660.0

168,241,112.00

150,214,452

After transferring proceeds of crime to the above mentioned accounts payments were made to acquire following properties (Movable/Immovable):

Sr.

Property (Moveable/Immovable)

Plot 450-C, Sector I-14/3, Islamabad

Plot 203-B, Sector I-14/3 Islamabad

Plot 167-C, Sector I-14/3 Islamabad

Plot 58, Sector I-10/3 Islamabad

During the investigation proceedings it transpired that the accused Noman Noon has given kickbacks to Zeeshan Majeed Bhatti son of Abdul Majeed Bhatti from his Allied Bank Account in the following manner:

Sr#

Cheque#

Amount

Date

70130081

2,500,000/-

18.03.2022

70130082

5,500,000/-

28.06.2022

70130083

5,500,000/-

28.06.2022

70130084

2,500,000/-

27.07.2022

70130085

2,500,000/-

27.07.2022

Total

18,500,000/-

The accused Malik Asif Noon with active connivance of CDA officials received an excess payment of Rs.42,056,741/- causing huge loss to national exchequer. These amounts were parked in his following account: 1. Allied Bank Limited Account#0010025689070039 As per CDA patwari and CDA Accounts officer report break down of payments made to accused Malik Noman Noon is as under:-

Sr#

Qabzal Wasool No.

Actual Amount

Amount Paid

Over Payment

Cheque

Date

162/191

1,628,234.00

5609

14/09/2013

271

4,015,125.00

181420

16/01/2020

1497

817,445.00

247591

24/08/2020

1263

5,902,710.00

8,902,710.00

3,000,000.00

247590

24/08/2020

951

1,756,987.00

9,756,987.00

8,000,000.00

181808

17/04/2020

306

3,800,968.00

8,800,968.00

5,000,000.00

181419

16/01/2020

1337

105,191.00

5,105,191.00

5,000,000.00

247622

09/10/2020

4,015,125.00

248025

17/05/2021

8,174,450.00

4,150,000.008, 174,450.00

248029

17/05/2021

8,867,166.00

248442

13/05/2021

Total

18,026,660.00

60,083,401.00

42,056,741.00

After transferring proceeds of crime to the above-mentioned accounts Dayments were made to acquire following properties Movable/Immovable):

Sr.

Property (Moveable/Immovable)

Plot 91, Sector I-14/3 Islamabad

Plot 118, Sector I-14/3 Islamabad

Plot 235, Sector I-14/3 Islamabad

11. In view of the above background, it is prima facie clear that both the petitioners have received a substantial amount in excess of their legitimate share. Despite being well aware that they had already received their lawful entitlement, they still accepted additional payments from the CDA in connivance with other co-accused, which they were not legally authorized to receive. However, the primary question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners pertains to section 9 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, wherein he elaimed that the petitioners were not given a proper opportunity of hearing, as they had not submitted a reply to the notice issued under Section 9 of the said Act. Provisional attachment under Section 8 of AMLA, 2010 12. Prior to consider the primary question of investigation and notices under Section 9 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, it is necessary to look at the scheme legislature has provided to the Investigating Officer under subsection (1) of Section 8 of the Act. This process initiates with the provisional attachment of property allegedly involves in money laundering, based on a report received from the concerned investigating or prosecuting agency, by an order in writing with the prior permission of the Court, which ultimately culminates in provisional attachment. 13. However, for such purposes, the investigating officer must have formed a reasonable belief that the property attached is involved in money laundering or proceeds of crime. The process mentioned under Section 8 of AMLA reflects a precondition that the investigating officer must exercise due diligence prior to the issuance of notice under section 9(1) to the concerned person. The due diligence includes collecting information or a report from any relevant agency, including but not limited to the State Bank of Pakistan, FMU, SRBs, AML/CFT regulatory authority, etc. Therefore, it is evident that before exercising powers under Section 9 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, the investigating officer must possess sufficient material that reasonably satisfies him that it is appropriate to proceed further. The minimum requirement for notice is as under: i. indicate the sources of his income. ii. earning or assets, out of which or by means of which he has acquired the property attached under subsection (1) of section 8, or, seized under section 14 or section 15. iii. The person if relies upon any other information or particulars. 4. After taking the prior action under section 8, which is more like preventive measure from changing the nature and status of attached property, the Investigating Officer begins the investigation and serves a notice of not less than 30 days to the concerned person. This notice must be issued no later than seven days from the date of the attachment order made under subsection (1) of Section 8 or any action taken pursuant to the seizure of property under Section 14 or 15 of the Act. Whereas, after obtaining the prior permission of the court for provisional attachment of the immovable property, the I.O. shall be restrained from "sealing" the property and must not prevent the persons interested in the property to enjoy the benefits arising out of that property. Notices Under Section 9(1) of AMLA, 2010 15. From the textual language of section 9 (1) it is implied that the notice must be clearly worded, containing details of the property, timelines of its purchase and registration, sources of funds, or any other information that could establish that the property was purchased or owned by the person to whom the notice has been issued. That person must be able to demonstrate that the amount used was obtained from a legitimate source, as reflected in records, such as income from business or property, or a loan received from any commercial or private entity or person. 16. Now the question arises as to, whether the notice is to be considered an ordinary notice to convey information or there is a requirement to reply to the same? Before answering this question, it is better to dilate upon the definition of notice and the types of notices, if there any. For that purpose, I took guidance from precedent judgments and Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition where the definition of "notice" is stated at length along with its types as follows:- "Notice. Information; the result of observation, whether by the senses or the mind; knowledge of the existence of a fact or state of affairs; the means of knowledge. Intelligence whatever means communicated." In another sense "notice" means information, an advice or a written warning in more or less formal shape, intended to apprise a person of some proceedings in which his interests are involved or informing him of some fact which it is his right to know and duty of the notifying party to communicate." Further notice is categorized in several types including actual notice which is stated as follows: - Actual notice. Actual notice has been defined as notice expressly and actually given, and brought home to the party directly. The term "actual notice," however, is generally given a wider meaning as embracing two classes, express and implied; the former includes all knowledge of a degree above that which depends upon collateral inference, or which imposes upon the party the further duty of inquiry, the latter imputes knowledge to the party because he is shown to be conscious of having the means of knowledge. In this sense actual notice is such notice as is positively proved to have been given to a party directly and personally, or such as he is presumed to have received personally because the evidence within his knowledge was sufficient to put him upon inquiry. 1. Express notice. Express notice embraces not only knowledge, but also that which is communicated by direct information, either written or oral, from those who are cognizant of the fact communicated. 2. Implied notice. Implied notice is one of the varieties of actual notice (not constructive) and is distinguished from "express" actual notice. It is notice inferred or imputed to a party by reason of his knowledge of facts or circumstances collateral to the main fact, of such a character as to put him upon inquiry, and which, if the inquiry were followed up with due diligence, would lead him definitely to the knowledge of the main fact. "Implied notice" is a presumption of fact, relating to what one can learn by reasonable inquiry, and arises from actual notice of circumstances, and not from constructive notice. Or as otherwise defined, implied notice may be said to exist where the fact in question lies open to the knowledge of the party, so that the exercise of reasonable observation and watchfulness would not fall to apprise him of it, although no one has told him of it in so many words. Lahore High Court in one of its judgments reported as MLD 1991 Lahore 1198 (Ahmad Nadeem v. Chairman, Arbitration Council) placed reliance on Aiyar's Judicial Dictionary 9th Edition and Ballentine's law Dictionary 3rd Edition which defined notice as providing someone knowledge or information that he was ignorant of. 17. Now keeping in view, the above definitions adverts towards the answer of our question mentioned above in para 16. The answer is provided in subsection (2) of Section 9 under clause (a), which says "considering the reply, if any, to the notice issued under subsection (1)". Here the duty of the Investigating Officer to seek reply is supported by the use of the term "shall," which indicates that it is a mandatory legal requirement to receive a reply. For this purpose, the Investigating Officer must make every effort to obtain a reply to the notice. The notice served under Section 9 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 is best characterized as an express actual notice, as defined in Black's Law Dictionary (5th Edition). According to this definition, express notice includes direct, personal communication of facts either written or oral made by someone with knowledge of those facts. Section 9 notice is not an ordinary procedural formality, but a substantive and protective step reflecting the special nature of anti-money laundering proceedings. Importantly, the law gives a minimum thirty-day response period, which clearly indicates the legislature's intent to ensure that the accused is given adequate time and opportunity to nature explain the sources of income and the legitimacy of the attached or seized assets. In Case of No Response to Notice 18. Even if the person to whom the notice was issued fails to respond refuses to respond, ignores the notice, or is not available at the given address, it is the duty of the Investigating Officer to make a serious effort to trace all possible addresses, mobile numbers, emails, or any other means of contact through which the person can be reached. If no such address is available or the person is deliberately hiding or concealing himself to avoid the proceedings under this law, the responsibility of the Investigating Officer increases significantly. The Investigating Officer must then ensure the discovery, recovery, and collection of all incriminating materials based on reports from other agencies or persons, and record his findings accordingly. 19. I have considered the sub-clause "a" of subsection (2) of Section 9, where the legislature has used the phrase "considering the reply, if any" and gave the Investigating Officer the leverage to proceed further if a reply has been received or not, it does not absolve the officer from adhering to the mandatory procedures. The primary duty of the Investigating Officer, in all respects, is to issue notice and receive a reply. Even otherwise, such a reply provides a way forward in matters of this nature and offers a clear picture to the trial Court to prosecute the accused on the basis of all such reports submitted by the Investigating Officer regarding the offence of money laundering. Therefore, this is not a simple case where the responsibility of the investigating officer ends upon delivering a single notice at one address. Rather, there is no bar under the law on the officer from issuing multiple notices, three, four, or even five at all known addresses, and through all available modes of service, including digital and electronic means, as well as social media platforms, in this modern technological era. Due Process and Fair Trial 20. The mandate of Article 10-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, when seen in the context of fair trial and due process for the determination of civil rights and obligations or any criminal charges against a person, clearly establishes that due process is mandatory feature. Every individual, who is likely to face such proceedings must be informed of the course of action being taken against them, so that they are able to respond to the information sought by the Investigating Officer. The person must be given the opportunity to prepare a defence of their choice, with a free mind, after due consideration. It is not within the mandate of the term "due process" that any action be taken behind a person's back, without informing them, without seeking an explanation, or without providing them an opportunity to present their perspective. Therefore, the ordinary meaning of the term "due process" is to be seen in the light of the definition explained in the judgment reported as PLD 2025 SC 11 (FGEHA through DG Islamabad v. Ednan Syed and others) and PLD 2022 SC 497 (Chairman NAB v. Nasar Ullah). 21. In addition to above definition, processes, procedural actions, activities, exercises, fair business tasks, and undertakings…

Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.

Related Legal Research & Directories

Browse all judgments from Islamabad High Court
Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant