2022 PLP 448 (CLD)
IFFAT IQBAL — Appellant Versus The STATE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2022 PLP 448 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | IFFAT IQBAL — Appellant Versus The STATE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Anti-Money Laundering Act (VII of 2010) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2022 PLP 448 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Anti-Money Laundering Act (VII of 2010) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2022 PLP 448 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2022 PLP 448 (CLD) (IFFAT IQBAL — Appellant Versus The STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Abdullah Raza for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 3, 4 & 8
Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001), Ss. 192 & 192-A
Attachment of Bank accounts allegedly used for money laundering
Bank accounts in question were allegedly joint accounts in the name of the appellant-lady and an accused, against whom an FIR was registered under different provisions of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 and the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001
Appellant and said accused were in a partnership, and the partnership deed showed that appellant was the owner of 20 % of the joint business while accused owned 30 % share of the same
As per same deed, the Bank accounts were to be operated by all the partners singly or jointly
Admittedly the appellant was the wife of accused's brother and during investigation it stood established that actually the accused ran the whole business
Keeping in view such facts, the impugned order of attaching the Bank accounts of the appellant-lady for 180 days did not suffer from any illegality or impropriety requiring interference by the High Court
Appeal was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
SYED SHAHBAZ ALI RIZVI, J.
The appellant through this criminal appeal has come up to this Court assailing the order dated 27.10.2021, passed by learned Special Judge (Customs, Taxation and Anti-Smuggling), Lahore whereby the bank accounts of the appellant besides those of Shahid Hanif accused of case FIR No.13/2020 dated 22.06.2020 registered under sections 192 -192-A of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 read with sections 3, 4 and 8 of the Anti- Money Laundering Act, 2010, have been provisionally attached for 180 days from the date of said order.
2. Arguments heard. Record Perused.
3. During arguments, it surfaced that the accounts of the appellant available at Serial Nos.2, 5, 13, 22, 23, 25 and 33 of the list provided by the respondent/Investigation Agency to the learned Court below pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant are joint accounts titled Suryia Cotton Industries. Shahid Hanif accused mentioned supra also jointly holds the same as per partnership deed of the appellant with the said accused available on file which transpires that the appellant is the owner of 20% of the joint business while Shahid Hanif accused owns 30% share of the same. As per same deed, the accounts are to be operated by all the partners singly or jointly. It is also admitted fact that the appellant is wife of Tahir Hanif brother of Shahid Hanif and during upto date investigation, as per Officer in attendance, it stands established that actually Shahid Hanif accused runs the whole business. Keeping in view the supra mentioned facts, this Court is of the opinion that order under challenge does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety requiring interference by this Court being sought through this appeal. Hence, the same is dismissed. MWA/I-6/L Appeal dismissed.