2025 P Cr (PLP)

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 1 162/180 1,628,234.00 1,628,234.00 - 5609 14/09/2013 2 271 4,015,125.00 4,015,125.00 - 181391 22/07/2019 3 1497 817,445.00 817,445.00 - 181392 22/07/2019 4 1263 5.902,710.00 8,902,710.00 3,00,000.00 181406 20/09/2019 5 951 1,756,937.00 9,756,987.00 8,000,000.00 181414 13/01/2020 6 306 3,800,958.00 8,800,968.00 5,000,000.00 181416 13/01/2020 7 1337 105,191.00 5,105,191.00 5,000,000.000 247621 13/01/2020 8 40,125,313.00 40,125,313.00 313182 27/06/2022 9 4,150,000.0 4,150,000.00 08/02/2021 10 5,902,710.00 5,902,710.00 245012 12/05/2021 11 2,474,432.00 2,474,434.00 248025 20/05/2021 12 5,700,015.00 5,700,015.00 248026 20/05/2021 13 9,587,184.00 9,587,184.00 248445 06/06/2021 14 34,761,051.00 34,761,051.00 242030 18/06/2021 15 9,756,987.00 9,756,987.00 31367 22/06/2022 16 3,887,167.00 3,887,167.00 31369 22/06/2022 17 8,563,609.00 8,563,609.00 313173 22/06/2022 18 4,305,984.00 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)

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

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

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

4. 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 1 70130081 2,500,000/- 18.03.2022 2 70130082 5,500,000/- 28.06.2022 3 70130083 5,500,000/- 28.06.2022 4 70130084 2,500,000/- 27.07.2022 5 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 1 162/191 1,628,234.00 1,628,234.00 - 5609 14/09/2013 2 271 4,015,125.00 4,015,125.00 - 181420 16/01/2020 3 1497 817,445.00 817,445.00 - 247591 24/08/2020 4 1263 5,902,710.00 8,902,710.00 3,000,000.00 247590 24/08/2020 5 951 1,756,987.00 9,756,987.00 8,000,000.00 181808 17/04/2020 6 306 3,800,968.00 8,800,968.00 5,000,000.00 181419 16/01/2020 7 1337 105,191.00 5,105,191.00 5,000,000.00 247622 09/10/2020 8 4,015,125.00 4,015,125.00 248025 17/05/2021 9 8,174,450.00 4,150,000.008, 174,450.00 248029 17/05/2021 10 8,867,166.00 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)

1. Plot 91, Sector I-14/3 Islamabad

2. Plot 118, Sector I-14/3 Islamabad

3. 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 require proper action to provide individuals, who have been issued a notice with the right to explain. Nature of Offence Under AMLA, 2010

22. A plain reading of the legislative intent envisaged under Sections 8, 9, 14, and 5 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 clearly indicates that the purpose of this Act is to prevent money laundering, combat the financing of terrorism, and provide for the forfeiture of property derived from or involved in money laundering. This is to be addressed within the scope of the definition rendered in Section 3, which states that a person shall be guilty of the offence of money laundering if they: Acquire, convert, possess, use, or transfer property, knowing or having reason, to believe that such property is the proceeds of crime;- Conceal or disguise the true nature, origin, location, disposition, movement, or ownership of property, knowing or having reason to believe that such property is the proceeds of crime; Hold or possess on behalf of any other person, any property knowing or having reason to believe that such property is the proceeds of crime; Participate in, associate with, conspire to commit, attempt to commit, aid, abet, facilitate, or counsel the commission of such acts.

23. If a person has been declared guilty of the offence of money laundering, it should not be considered an ordinary criminal case. Rather, the entire Act provides a comprehensive mechanism and legal framework enabling the Investigating Officer to proceed effectively with the investigation. This includes obtaining multiple reports from reporting entities, such as the State Bank of Pakistan, SRBs, and seeking international cooperation through foreign counterparts, regulators, or financial monitoring units on technical matters. The Investigating Officer may also collect information from the FBR, tax authorities, revenue authorities, registrar offices, SECP, or any other government departments or private companies.

24. In this regard, the law does not mandate that the Investigating Officer can proceed without obtaining responses or replies to issued notices. The Investigating Officer is under a legal obligation to record their findings only after confronting the accused with all the relevant materials and replies received, as well as any evidence collected. Therefore, the findings given by the Investigating Officer are based on all incriminating material and the level of satisfaction reached, whereby no other conclusion can be drawn, except that the property or assets in question, acquired by the accused, are to be considered none other than proceeds of crime. Concent of Show-Cause Notice

25. Even otherwise, subsection (1) of Section 9 further introduces another concept of a show-cause notice, empowering the Investigating Officer to ask the accused person why all or any of such properties should not be declared as properties involved in money laundering and forfeited to the Federal Government. The purpose of show-cause is providing an adequate opportunity to the accused of submitting an explanation as held in 2019 MLD 870 Islamabad (Attock Gen Ltd. v. Additional Commissioner (Audit), Large Taxpayer Unit, Islamabad). Such a show-cause notice is a subsequent stage following the collection of requisite information under the notice referred to above, in terms of subsection (1) of Section

9. However, Section 9 is silent regarding any adverse action and that may be taken by the Investigating Officer against a person, who fails to respond to the notice, refuses to submit a reply with an explanation, or declines to provide the required information. No penal provision is provided under section 9 in case of non-provision of reply to the notices. Nevertheless, such a refusal does not create an exception allowing the Investigating Officer to proceed directly against the accused persons unless a sufficient level of satisfaction has been achieved based on incriminating material and a detailed report to that effect is to be prepared. However, it does not mean that the I.O. may arrest the accused person merely for not providing the requisite information.

26. The legislature has used the word "Show Cause" in subsection (1) of Section 9 of Anti-Money Laundering, Act, 2010 with a further phrase that why all or any of such properties should not be declared to be the properties involved in money laundering and forfeited to the Federal Government. Such concept outrightly put a serious emphasis on the Show-Cause Notice, which reflects that the accused shall be notified with his illegality, incriminating material, the source of properties or assets, crime proceeds with a warning so that the he may answer the allegations against him and be given an adequate opportunity opportunity to explain his position. The Jurisprudence is now pretty settled on the point that Show-Cause Notice is a serious business and is not a casual correspondence. Its purpose is to put the person on notice about the allegations for which the authorities intend to proceed against him and to give him an opportunity to explain his position. This principle is rooted in the principles of natural justice and fair trial in case law reported as 2018 PTD 253 [Lahore] (WAK Limited, Lahore v. Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal) in the following manner:- (i) Validity of show-cause notice is fundamental to the assumption of jurisdiction by the authority concerned. (ii) A show-cause notice should indicate that it is a show-cause which makes the respondent aware that if he does not respond to it adverse action might be taken against him. (iii) If there is any pre-requisite for the issuance of a show-cause notice the same must be fulfilled. Where a statutory show-cause notice is required to be served, the Department cannot proceed without it. Any demand notice issued without such statutory notice would be coram non judice. (iv) Mere allegation that a particular provision of law has been breached is not enough. The show-cause notice must be specific and should not be couched in general terms. It should contain the essential ingredients necessary to show infraction of law. (v) The grounds or reasons must be explicitly set out. The show-cause notice carrying the defect of vagueness may not stand the test of judicial scrutiny. (vi) Omission to mention in the show-cause notice the specific provision which is alleged to have been contravened is not fatal and does not ipso facto make it void.

27. Therefore, the investigating agency or officer must distinguish between the notice and a Show-Cause Notice issued under subsection (1) of Section 9, as they are of entirely different nature. Issuance of a Show Cause Notice is mandatory, requiring the authority to formally notify the person concerned, thereby affording him an opportunity to submit a reply with reasonable cause as to why a particular action should not be taken against him, or to provide an explanation regarding the assets, proceeds of crime, or properties under the Anti-Money Laundering framework. This procedural safeguard ensures that a fair opportunity is granted to the accused to lead his defence as held in 2022 SCMR 92 (Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Jahangir Khan Tareen).

28. There is no denial to the prosecution that Show-Cause Notice must support with evidence which determines the offence attracted in a particular case. Show-Cause Notice is not a casual correspondence or a tool or license to commence a roving inquiry into the affairs of accused, based on assumptions and speculations but is a fundamental document that carries definitive legal and factual position of the investigation agency as well as of the accused person, therefore, the requirement highlighted in WAK Limited Lahore (supra) must be strictly observed in every Show-Cause Notice issued by the Investigation Officer in cases involving money laundering. Procedure of Income Tax Law is Appropriate

29. Now question arises if no such reply is provided by the accused person, or any related material is not submitted by the accused or any other person, then in such a situation, is it permissible to proceed ex-parte against the accused person based solely on incriminating material or other information? In such cases, the Rocedure provided in income tax laws is the most appropriate, as it allows for a step-by-step approach and provides ample opportunity for the accused person to explain their point of view. The primary onus lies upon the accused to explain their position; it is not the responsibility of the prosecution to discharge this burden at the initial stage particularly during the investigation phase. The role of the investigating officer is to collect incriminating materials and pose relevant questions to the accused. It is advisable that a questionnaire be sent to the accused person, or to any other individual from whom an explanation or information is required, so that maximum relevant information can be extracted/collected to prove the charge under Section 3 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, in a Court of law. Scheme of Anti-Money Laundering Law

30. The entire scheme of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, when seen in the context of the sentence provided under Section 4 of the Act, which prescribes a minimum punishment of not less than one year and a maximum of up to ten years, along with a fine of up to Rs. 25 million, as well as forfeiture of the property involved in money laundering or property of equivalent value shows that the procedure envisaged in Section 9 largely reflects the concept of civil proceeding and determination of civil rights. These proceedings are subsequently culminated into criminal prosecution, when the matter is placed before the trial Court under this law. Similarly, the investigating officer should not behave like a police officer, where an individual, upon choosing not to answer questions, is immediately arrested. Despite having the powers under subsection (1) of Section 55 Cr.P.C., the officer can defer the arrest. Crimes under AMLA are categorized as white-collar crimes and arrest in such alleged crimes in a mechanical fashion may generate serious consequences. The manner in which power to arrest by an agency or investigating officer is to be availed is discussed at length by a Division Bench of this court in a judgment reported as PLD 2021 Islamabad 266 (Amjad Mustafa Malik v Director General, National Accountability Bureau and 4 others). Therefore, in such cases, it is more advisable that, instead of arresting the person from whom information is sought, the officer should allow the individual an opportunity to submit an explanation unless the investigating officer is satisfied that all necessary material and information have already been obtained.

31. Now adverting towards the conduct of the Investigating Officer in this case, who submitted a report that was agreed upon by the Zonal Board, F.I.A, comprising of four officials of the F.I.A, who concurred with the recommendations. However, surprisingly, a notice under Section 8 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 is available on record, a notice under Section 9, titled as a "Show-Cause Notice", is appended in the report, whereas the other notice confirming the information called for from the petitioners is not available on record. This missing part highlights that the Investigating Officer has not applied the true spirit of Section 9, though he collected all relevant materials, including but not limited to information from the CDA Land and Rehabilitation Directorate, the bank, and revenue authorities. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the notice issued to the petitioners including the Show-Cause Notice, although referring to the address of the petitioners, is entirely different from the particulars referred in the writ petition or in the affidavit.

32. Furthermore, no report is available on record to verify that the Investigating Officer made any serious effort to place the relevant questions or requisition the information claimed from the petitioners in writing, or that the notices were duly served. Even though the notices contain mobile numbers, there is no report available indicating whether the numbers were unresponsive or if the accused persons refused to reply to the Investigating Officer's queries.

33. In the absence of such a report, this Court is not in a position to agree with the resporse given by the Investigating Officer that he fulfilled the minimum requirements of clause (a) of subsection (2) of Section 9 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 where it is mandatory to consider any reply, if received, to the notice issued under subsection (1). The phrase "if any" is to be considered a last resort, and justiciable efforts must be demonstrated by the Investigating Officer through a written report, which should be placed along with other incriminating material before the F.I.A Zonal Board. If such a report is silent on these aspects, the Zonal Board is under an obligation to return the report to the Investigating Officer with a direction to reinitiate the process, receive the reply along with supporting material from the concerned person or accused, and submit a fresh report to the Board or to the competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution conclusively to be held by the trial Court. Separate Rules Under Section 9 AMLA, 2010.

34. Although, Section 9 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 is exhaustive in nature, however, this court believes that rules may also be framed in terms of powers contained in Section 43 of the Act, to explain all the circumstances, mode and manner of investigation, and the imposition of rules if notified for the purpose of investigation, are intended to prevent the abuse of power by the Investigating Officer (I.O.) and to help the person who was given notice have confidence in the investigation system, ensuring that their right to a fair trial with transparency is protected. However, in terms of Section 5 of the Act, the Federal Government may, in consultation with the National Executive Committee, make rules for the effective implementation of this Act the framing of a national policy to combat money abad laundering and the financing of terrorism. In this context, a well-defined oversight mechanism is essential to achieve the purpose of this law by effectively implementing the national strategy and ensuring that all the notices are properly served. Recommendations to Overcome Investigation Gaps

35. No doubt, the Criminal Procedure Code is applicable in terms of Section 22 of the Act to the proceedings before the Court. However, it is applicable insofar as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act. It applies to arrest, bail, bonds, search, seizure, attachment, forfeiture, confiscation, investigation, prosecution, and all other proceedings under this Act. Therefore, the term 'investigation' has been used in the said provision. If the mandate of the Criminal Procedure Code has been considered, there is no separately defined notice available in the Code. However, the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 being a specialized law, provides the details of the subject of notice to be given to the accused or any other person from whom information or details are required in money laundering cases. Therefore, it is not the purpose of the Act to allow the investigating officer to act in an ex parte manner and submit a report in a mechanical fashion to the concerned authorities, who then agree to the recommendations in an omnibus order. Rather, it is the duty of the superior authorities, as well as the recommending agencies, to prosecute the accused and satisfy their conscience that proper service of notice was given, and proof to that effect has been appended with the report. This ensures that the accused person or any other person cannot claim that they were unaware of the oply proceedings or that they wish to explain their perspective before the Court of law when a final report is submitted. In this backdrop, the Court may feel handicapped when the plea raised by the accused person requires further investigation or probe.

36. In such an eventuality, the Court can also exercise its powers to further direct the investigating officer or any other agency to provide all necessary information or material. The Court may also direct the Investigating Officer to formulate a fresh view or record the findings for the satisfaction of the trial Court; however, such an order requires justified reasons from the trial Court.

37. The involvement of any property or the declaration of any financial means as crime proceeds is a technical subject that may not be proven in a direct manner. Multiple reports, statements, and technical assistance are required from specialists, such as experts in tax audit, forensic audit, corporate affairs, or information technology. Their reports may be used in prosecution at a later stage, but the investigating officer requires the collection of these materials.

38. If we consider this aspect in juxtaposition with the mandate of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, the primary onus in terms of Section 9 of the Act and investigation lies upon the person against whom a notice has been issued based on reasonable satisfaction. While collecting any report by the investigating officer or investigating agency, the burden is shifted to the accused person, who is then obligated to explain their point of view. This can lead to exoneration at the investigation stage subject to justified reasons submitted by the accused as reflected in the final report by the investigating officer. Additionally, any other person with an interest in an immovable property, or someone claiming entitlement to it, or a third person, may also be given notice by the investigating officer, Similarly, the person, other than the accused, is required to prove that the property is not involved in money laundering activities. The wording used by the legislature in the first proviso of subsection (2) of Section 9 places a serious burden on the accused person or a third party involved in such cases. To demonstrate that the property or asset referred by the I.O. is not achieved through laundered money and not crime proceeds. They are required to explain any link with the property or the proceeds of crime, and if a satisfactory explanation is not provided, the investigating officer shall proceed accordingly. However, it is mandatory for the investigating officer to give the accused person or any third party the right of hearing in this regard and issue notices accordingly. Therefore, any final report submitted by the I.O. must reflect compliance with this requirement and should satisfy the following tests to ensure proper service of notice: i. Non-attachment of report of notice to the accused person or a third person on its residential, business or any electronic address or any other known address will be treated non-service of notice, ii. Investigating officer shall append a detailed report of service through physical service of notice at the address of the accused person or a third person on all properties including but not limited to the properties purchased through the proceeds of crime, may serve a notice based upon NADRA address reports after receiving the particulars or on the address notified in the tax record or serve a notice on any business address which has been registered with the Registrar of Firms or in the SECP or before any other Regulator. iii. Investigating Officer shall submit a report of his visits for serving the notice upon the accused person along with documents though registered post, receipts, TCS or any other private companies receipts through which it could be assumed that notices were served or may submit a notice recording in which accused acknowledges the receiving of notice. iv. A separate note has to be appended along with final findings if the accused has not participated in the Investigation proceedings to satisfy the competent authority or the F.I.A Board or any other authority that serious efforts were made for the purposes of service of notice. v. Trial Court if comes to a conclusion that accused was not given due opportunity of hearing or reasonable explanation are required qua crime proceeds for the properties in question or the source of income or the assets belong to the accused, the matter may be handed over to the investigating officer for further reply and detail report to be additionally filed in the Court after extending due right of hearing to the accused within time frame given by the trial Court to achieve the satisfactory compliance of requirement of Section 9 of AMLA, 2010.

39. The abovementioned processes are also important as they provide the requisite information that must be laid before the competent authority before allowing the prosecution to proceed further and submit a conclusive report in Court. If this information is not provided, the Court may feel handicapped during the trial, and the investigating officer in the witness box may fail to explain the efforts made to achieve satisfaction in coming to the view that the accused obtained assets through proceeds of crime. In such an eventuality, the prosecution might fail, and the entire effort would become futile, as envisaged in Section 9, which is meant to prevent the future failure of the prosecution.

40. No doubt, the accused is also entitled to present all such information and documents, or call any person as a witness including, but not limited to, officials of any department or agency in his defence to prove that the properties, assets, or income are not proceeds of crime and do not fall within the mandate of Section 3 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010.

41. In view of the above, the FIA report is silent regarding the purpose of service of notice and the procedural details required to be followed under Section 9 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010. However, this could not be considered as a ground for quashing of the FIR. The answer, therefore, is in the negative, as the report already appended in this case prima facie provides an overview that certain properties are in the names of the petitioners, who have received certain payments beyond their legitimate share after the acquisition of the property by the CDA. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners has not rendered any explanation regarding the source of income from which the residential properties were purchased, nor has it been clarified what their entitled share was in the land acquired by the CDA. Furthermore, no information has been provided to counter the allegation of overpayment received by the petitioners from the CDA. Therefore, in the absence of such information, which is also required to be collected by the investigating officer under Section 9 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, this Court is of the view that this is not a justified case for quashing of the FIR. CONCLUSION.

42. In this regard, I have been guided by the general principles governing the quashing of FIRs under the powers contained in Section 561-A Cr.P.C, where the facts and circumstances of each case must be considered. If, on a bare reading of the entire report, the Court comes to the conclusion that no offence is made out, or that the investigation was initiated without jurisdiction or lawful authority as held in 2016 SCMR 447 (Director General, FIA v. Kamran Iqbal) or where there is no evidence, or the registration of the case is mala fide, or the case is clearly of a civil nature and criminal proceedings are not warranted under the law, or there exist serious jurisdictional defects, only then the High Court can exercise its inherent powers to quash the FIR in exceptional cases. This, however, is not such a case. Moreover, the service of notice is not available on record, despite the claim that such notice was served upon the petitioners.

43. On the contrary, the petitioners never bothered to respond. Even as of today, they are seeking the quashing of the FIR solely on this ground. However, it does not affect the merits of the case. Rather, the issuance of notice is 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. The onus is upon them to absolve themselves of the said criminal liability. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be given a premium for failing to respond to the notices issued by the Enquiry Officer under the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010. Even otherwise, this Court has been guided with the principle settled in 2023 PC.LJ 38 (Muhammad Rafique v. Director General, Federal Investigation Agency, Islamabad), 2024 MLD 1815 (Sharjeel Javed v. The State).

44. In light of above, the case presented by the petitioners before this Court seeking the quashing of the FIR is not substantiated in any manner. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate any illegality or mala fide intent on the part of the investigating agency for registration of these two FIRs. There is no indication of abuse of the legal process, nor have the petitioners claimed that no alternate remedy is available to them. Therefore, both petitions are hereby DISMISSED.

45. Before parting with this judgment, it is observed that the Investigating Officer shall issue a fresh notice under Section 9 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 to the petitioners, specifying the date time, place, and a questionnaire to allow them to explain their point of view regarding the properties owned by them and the amounts received through banking channels. After receiving the relevant receipts, reports, and documents, if any, the officer shall provide fresh findings accordingly, within a period of one month. The petitioners are also directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on the notified date and time. The Investigating Officer is further directed to provide an opportunity to the petitioners to ensure that their point of view is duly considered. JK/87/Isl. Petitions dismissed.