2026 P Cr (PLP)

Sardar Ahmad Haleemi, J.

The petitioner has invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 ( the Constitution ) with the following relief: It is therefore respectfully prayed that keeping in view the above made humble submissions, the instant petition may kindly be allowed and the Impugned Inquiry may kindly be quashed or the respondent may kindly be directed to close the Impugned inquiry against the petitioner. Any other relief this Hon ble court deems fit and appropriate in the circumstances of the case may also be awarded to the petitioners in the interest of justice, equity and fair play.

2. As per contents of the instant petition, the petitioner is the sole proprietor of Al Muzamil Traders, a duly registered business engaged in various commercial activities, including import-export services, brokerage, and electronics trading. The petitioner is an active taxpayer, registered with the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) for both income and sales tax, and is also a member of the All Pakistan Dry Fruits Import and Export Association. The respondent has repeatedly subjected the petitioner to harassment through multiple inquiries and FIRs based on similar allegations. Initially, Federal Investigation Agency ( FIA ) initiated Inquiry No.47/2020 against the petitioner, followed by registration of FIR No.03/2022 under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, and subsequently FIR No.25/2022 under the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010. In both cases, after full-fledged trial, the petitioner was acquitted of the charges by learned Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Quetta, vide order dated 18-06-2022. Despite the petitioner s acquittal and closure of the prior cases, the respondent has now initiated another inquiry (Inquiry No. 15/2023) under the pretext of terror financing, involving the same transactions and allegations as earlier. The inquiry officer remains the same, and the petitioner is again being summoned under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 ( Cr.P.C ), causing mental, physical, and financial distress. The present petition is filed to challenge the legality and propriety of this repeated and unlawful inquiry, which constitutes double jeopardy, lacks jurisdiction, and amounts to an abuse of process of law.

3. Pursuant to the notice, the Investigating Officer FIA appeared and filed reply with the stance that the Financial Monitoring Unit (FMU) flagged 140 individuals for suspicious financial activity potentially linked to terror financing, leading the Counter Terrorism Wing (CTW), FIA Quetta to initiate Enquiry No.23. 42 individuals have cooperated, except the petitioner; his reference to unrelated FIRs under different FIA circles (CBC and AML) is irrelevant, as those do not fall under CTW s jurisdiction, and his acquittal there does not exempt him from this enquiry. The claim that he was investigated by SI Zahid Gul is unsupported. Since CTW has proper jurisdiction under FIA rules, the petition is meritless and should be dismissed, with directions for the petitioner to join the enquiry.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contended that respondent s impugned inquiry is based on the same set of allegations which the competent court of law has already adjudicated upon in two separate criminal trials; that the repeated inquiries and issuance of notices without fresh material evidence amounts to sheer harassment and is violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed under the Constitution; that after facing criminal trials in FIR Nos.03/2022 and 25/2022, the petitioner was acquitted by the learned trial Court on 18-06-2022. The re-initiation of inquiry on the same subject matter and same transactions merely by altering the law under which allegations are framed constitutes double jeopardy; the allegations of terror financing now being investigated do not fall within the lawful jurisdiction of the FIA without proper authorization or complaint from the competent authority as per law. No such complaint has been filed before any competent court, and the offence being non-cognizable, the respondent is acting beyond its legal powers; that the petitioner has fully cooperated in previous inquiries by providing all bank statements, business records, and tax documents. During the course of previous trials, the respondent examined the records and did not find any incriminating evidence against the petitioner; thus, reopening of another inquiry on the same set of allegation is arbitrary, unlawful, and amounts to harassment; that Mr Zahid Gul reminded inquiry officer in the previous inquiries/ investigations, and FIRs, is now conducting the impugned inquiry as well. His repeated involvement, despite the petitioner s acquittal, shows clear bias and malicious intent to target the petitioner; that the petitioner is a registered taxpayer and an active member of a recognized trade association and the continuous harassment has caused irreparable loss to his business, mental torture and financial harm, thus violating his right to life and dignity under the Constitution; that no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the impugned inquiry alive, as it is nothing more than a repetition of previously settled matters.

5. Conversely, learned Deputy Attorney General, assisted by Assistant Director, Legal FIA controverted the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and argued that the ongoing inquiry is based on a strategic analysis report from the FMU under the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, identifying 140 high-risk individuals, including the petitioner, for suspected terror financing based on unusual high-volume transactions; that the inquiry is being lawfully conducted by the CTW, FIA Quetta, which is the competent authority under Serial No.21 of the FIA s schedule to investigate terror financing; that the acquittals in FIRs Nos.03/2022 and 25/2022 are unrelated, as those were registered by other FIA units (CBC and AML), while the present inquiry pertains solely to terror financing under a distinct legal framework; that despite being served with notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has failed to join the inquiry, unlike 42 others, who have cooperated, his non-compliance is obstructing the investigation; that the allegation of the petitioner is that same officer (SI Zahid Gul) handled previous FIRs is unsupported by any evidence; CTW confirms that he was not involved in the earlier cases; that offences under terror financing laws are cognizable and the FIA is fully authorized to conduct an inquiry without prior court approval; the inquiry is at a preliminary stage and no FIR has been registered, as such, the petition is premature and lacks merit at this stage. In light of national security and Pakistan s international commitments, quashing the inquiry would hinder a legitimate and sensitive investigation.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, which reveals that the FIA authorities initiated an inquiry No.15/2023 (hereinafter the impugned inquiry ) against the petitioner based on a general reference contained in a Strategic Analysis Report (SAR) issued by the FMU. Crucially, the report does not contain any specific, direct, or actionable material implicating the petitioner in any offence relating to terror financing. No clear allegation, transactional evidence, or nexus with any proscribed organization or unlawful activity has been established on the record. The inquiry, therefore, rests on speculation and lacks a legal and evidentiary foundation. Further, the record depicts that the petitioner has previously faced multiple inquiries and FIRs under different statutory regimes, in which courts of competent jurisdiction acquitted him. Initiating yet another inquiry based on the same set of facts and transactions, already examined and adjudicated, without any fresh or credible evidence, amounts to harassment and constitutes a clear abuse of the legal process. The record further reveals that the investigation process itself is defective, marred by a lack of procedural compliance, absence of any coherent investigative methodology, and failure to adhere to the statutory requirements of gathering and presenting reliable evidence. The notice issued under Section 160 Cr.P.C., without disclosing any precise allegation or supporting documentation, only underscores the arbitrary and flawed nature of the proceedings. The law requires an investigating agency to act on the basis of some credible information or material. Mere suspicion or reference in a general report cannot substitute for legally admissible and probative evidence. In the absence of such material, the continuation of the inquiry serves no purpose other than to cause mental anguish, reputational injury, and financial hardship to the petitioner. The repeated and unjustified initiation of proceedings against the petitioner, particularly in the absence of new material, not only infringes upon his right to fair treatment under the law but also violates his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 4, 9, and 14 of the Constitution. Further, the doctrine of double jeopardy contended by leaned counsel for the petitioner, as the petitioner has already been tried and acquitted on the same set of facts, and any subsequent prosecution on identical grounds would be barred by this constitutional safeguard. The initiation of fresh proceedings in the absence of any new material evidence violates the constitutional fundamental rights guarantee under Article 13(a) of the Constitution, read with Section 403 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 26 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.

7. This doctrine, encapsulated by the Latin maxim nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa, prohibits prosecution for the same offence more than once. The law recognizes the rights of an accused to be free from repeated prosecution when a court of competent jurisdiction has already adjudicated a matter and has attained finality. Reliance is placed on the case of Abdul Malik and others v. The State and others (PLD 2006 SC 365), wherein it was held as under:

13. It is clause (a) of this Article which is relevant for the issue in hand. The genesis of this provision can be traced to the English Common Law rule nemo debet bis vexari , which in literal sense means that a person may not be put twice in peril for the same offence. This principle by now has come to assume a universal application and is found in constitutions of most of the countries.

8. As a sequel to the above discussion, it is concluded that the impugned inquiry is based on vague, speculative, and unsubstantiated allegations; the investigative process is defective, procedurally flawed, and lacking evidentiary backing; the notice issued under Section 160 Cr.P.C., is without lawful authority; the doctrine of double jeopardy bars any further investigation on the same facts under Article 13 of the Constitution read with Section 403 Cr.P.C., and Section 26 of the General Clauses Act; as such, the petitioner s fundamental rights under Articles 4, 9, and 14 have been violated. For the above reasons, Constitutional Petition No.448 of 2024 is allowed; consequently, the impugned inquiry No.15/2023 initiated by the respondent/FIA is declared to be without lawful authority, based on a defective inquiry/investigation, and of no legal effect. The notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C dated 15.04.2024 issued to the petitioner is hereby quashed. MH/161/Bal. Petition allowed.