Freezing of bank account

2025 PLD 177 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 12 & 13Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionMaintainabilityFreezing of bank accountsAlternate and efficacious remedyScope

During pendency of objection petitions before Accountability Court, petitioners/accused persons assailed orders passed by NAB officials freezing all their bank accounts including those which were not subject matter of inquiry and investigation before NAB

Objection was raised by NAB to maintainability of Constitutional petition on the ground that S. 13 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 provided mechanism for receiving and adjudication of an objection by any person aggrieved by freezing order passed under S. 12 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, and such objection petition was already pending before Accountability Court

Validity

Almost 75 bank accounts of petitioners/accused persons had been frozen by NAB authorities without realizing that those accounts related to existing business activities of petitioners/ accused persons, in which not only pecuniary interest of petitioners/ accused persons were involved but the accounts related to their business activities regarding execution of public contracts and huge interest of the government/semi government organization were also involved

Remedy under S. 13 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 was merely illusory

It was not a settled rule that in all circumstances availability of an alternate remedy to an aggrieved person would be a bar for maintaining Constitutional petition

High Court overruled the objection of NAB authorities

Constitutional petition was held to be maintainable, in circumstances.

2017 PLD 53 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 5Freezing of bank accountPrincipleFederal Investigation Agency issued notice to Bank to freeze account of petitionerPlea raised by petitioner was that he or his account had no nexus with investigation of any criminal caseValidity

Copy of charge sheet submitted by investigating officer did not reflect account in question having any nexus or relevance with investigation of F.I.R. in question

Notice issued by Federal Investigation Agency regarding account of petitioner was void ab initio and without lawful authority

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

2013 PCrLJ 208 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 21 & 37Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionFreezing order, notice ofScopeFreezing of bank accountProcedure

Grievance of petitioner was that conviction was awarded to her son by Trial Court but authorities had frozen her bank account

Validity

Freezing order was always an interim arrangement till forfeiture or release of assets was directed by Court

Difference between freezing of assets by court or Director-General of Anti-Narcotic Force (ANF) or authorized person, as appeared from S.37(2) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, was that Director-General or authorized officer had to place freezing notice issued by them before court within seven days and it was the Court which had to decide continuation or otherwise of such freezing notice

Where court did not provide continuation to freezing notice issued by Director-General of Anti-Narcotic Force or authorized officer, the same lost its sanctity after expiry of 7 days and assets would automatically stand released

Where continuation to freezing notice was granted by court or the court directed freezing of assets till trial finalized, then, unless court forfeited assets by passing separate reasoned order or through judgment, the assets automatically stood released upon pronouncement of judgment for the reason that forfeiture of assets, except where accused was convicted for an offence under S.12 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, was not a sine qua non to conviction but subject to the conditions prescribed under S.39 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Before directing forfeiture, Court must provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to person affected through such forfeiture in order to satisfy itself that assets sought to be forfeited had been derived, generated or obtained through such act or omission

Conviction of accused did not result in sentence of imprisonment exceeding three years, therefore, question of forfeiting of assets did not arise

High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction, declared notice of freezing of petitioner's account of no legal effect and petitioner was free to withdraw her funds from her bank account

Petition was allowed in circumstances.