Inquiry and investigation
Inquiry and investigation legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Powers of FIA regarding investigation are duly structured in Federal Investigation Agency (Inquiries and Investigations) Rules, 2002
Federal Investigation Agency can only inquire and investigate certain offences either committed in connection with matters concerning Federal Government or for matters connected therewith.
Petitioner/Insurance company assailed initiation of inquiry proceedings by Federal Investigation Agency ('FIA') on the complaints of respondents/insured persons, pertaining to dispute over insurance amount
Validity
Besides having numerous other functions, Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan is also a regulator of business of insurance companies
Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan had taken up the case of respondents/insured persons with petitioner/company and proceedings for settlement between the parties were in progress while respondents/insured persons were not agreeing to amount which were released to them
If there was any genuine dispute between parties it could be resolved before forums provided under Insurance Ordinance, 2000
Such dispute could not be made a base for proceedings under penal criminal laws
Provisions of Insurance Ordinance, 2000 are special law which has to prevail over general law
Special mechanism has been provided for dealing with offences for contravention of Insurance Ordinance, 2000
High Court quashed inquiry proceedings initiated by FIA as the same was uncalled for and without lawful authority
Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.
Powers of FIA regarding investigation are duly structured in Federal Investigation Agency (Inquiries and Investigations) Rules, 2002
Federal Investigation Agency can only inquire and investigate certain offences either committed in connection with matters concerning Federal Government or for matters connected therewith.
Petitioner/Insurance company assailed initiation of inquiry proceedings by Federal Investigation Agency ('FIA') on the complaints of respondents/insured persons, pertaining to dispute over insurance amount
Validity
Besides having numerous other functions, Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan is also a regulator of business of insurance companies
Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan had taken up the case of respondents/insured persons with petitioner/company and proceedings for settlement between the parties were in progress while respondents/insured persons were not agreeing to amount which were released to them
If there was any genuine dispute between parties it could be resolved before forums provided under Insurance Ordinance, 2000
Such dispute could not be made a base for proceedings under penal criminal laws
Provisions of Insurance Ordinance, 2000 are special law which has to prevail over general law
Special mechanism has been provided for dealing with offences for contravention of Insurance Ordinance, 2000
High Court quashed inquiry proceedings initiated by FIA as the same was uncalled for and without lawful authority
Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.
Powers of FIA regarding investigation are duly structured in Federal Investigation Agency (Inquiries and Investigations) Rules, 2002
Federal Investigation Agency can only inquire and investigate certain offences either committed in connection with matters concerning Federal Government or for matters connected therewith.
Petitioner/Insurance company assailed initiation of inquiry proceedings by Federal Investigation Agency ('FIA') on the complaints of respondents/insured persons, pertaining to dispute over insurance amount
Validity
Besides having numerous other functions, Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan is also a regulator of business of insurance companies
Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan had taken up the case of respondents/insured persons with petitioner/company and proceedings for settlement between the parties were in progress while respondents/insured persons were not agreeing to amount which were released to them
If there was any genuine dispute between parties it could be resolved before forums provided under Insurance Ordinance, 2000
Such dispute could not be made a base for proceedings under penal criminal laws
Provisions of Insurance Ordinance, 2000 are special law which has to prevail over general law
Special mechanism has been provided for dealing with offences for contravention of Insurance Ordinance, 2000
High Court quashed inquiry proceedings initiated by FIA as the same was uncalled for and without lawful authority
Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.
Process for inquiry/investigation under Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 and Standard Operating Procedure is expansive and envisages rigorous and intrusive regime that does not warrant any further guidance to investigating officers through rules
Standard Operating Procedures are consistent with the provisions of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and Directorate (I&I) Inland Revenue can frame in-house rules for conducting investigation of offences of money laundering
Rules are neither necessary nor inevitable for carrying out functions of investigating and prosecuting agencies under sections 8 and 9 of Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010
Non-framing of rules does not impair functions of investigating officer in any manner.
Petitioner was aggrieved of initiation of inquiry by Federal Investigating Agency (FIA) and imposing restrictions on his bank accounts
Validity
Section 550, Cr.P.C. encompassed bank accounts
Since the FIA was competent to exercise powers under S. 550, Cr.P.C., it held the authority to freeze bank accounts or restrict their operation under S. 5(1) of the FIA Act, regardless of whether the matter was in the inquiry or investigation stage
However, this would be subject to the condition that there should be some nexus with the alleged offence or that circumstances created suspicion of the commission of any offence
Freezing of accounts affects the right to privacy and the reputation of the account holder
Federal Investigating Agency could not arbitrarily freeze bank accounts or keep them frozen indefinitely
Such actions would violate the account holder's constitutional and legal rights
However, these individual rights must be balanced with the duty of the State to combat crime and punish offenders
Whenever the FIA issued a directive restricting an individual's bank account, whether during an inquiry or investigation, it must promptly notify the relevant Magistrate or Court, which would then issue an order in accordance with the law appropriate to the situation and circumstances
In the present case, Respondent No.3 (Inspector, FIA) had debit-blocked the Petitioner's account by exercising the authority under S. 5(5) of the FIA Act read with S. 8 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act
Fact that Respondent No.3 did not register an FIR upon receiving a complaint alleging the commission of a cognizable offence did not hinder the initiation of the investigation
Perusal of the record showed that Respondent No.3 had blatantly disregarded Ss. 8 & 9 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act in the present case
Investigating Officer did not obtain permission from the competent Court before issuing directives to the Bank concerning the petitioner's account
Investigating Officer did not render findings under S. 9(2) of the Anti-Money Laundering Act or applied to the Court for an order under S. 9(3) thereof
Investigating Officer did not submit a monthly progress report of the investigation to the Court
Petition was accepted and the limitation placed on the petitioner's bank account by Respondent No.3 was annulled.
Legislature has used two terms in S. 5 of Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974 i.e. "inquiry" and "investigation", without providing specific definition
While both these terms are commonly considered interchangeable, they carry distinct meanings in the legal context
Inquiry can be termed as the first step towards investigation.
Process for inquiry/investigation under Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 and Standard Operating Procedure is expansive and envisages rigorous and intrusive regime that does not warrant any further guidance to investigating officers through rules
Standard Operating Procedures are consistent with the provisions of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and Directorate (I&I) Inland Revenue can frame in-house rules for conducting investigation of offences of money laundering
Rules are neither necessary nor inevitable for carrying out functions of investigating and prosecuting agencies under sections 8 and 9 of Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010
Non-framing of rules does not impair functions of investigating officer in any manner.
Process for inquiry/investigation under Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 and Standard Operating Procedure is expansive and envisages rigorous and intrusive regime that does not warrant any further guidance to investigating officers through rules
Standard Operating Procedures are consistent with the provisions of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and Directorate (I&I) Inland Revenue can frame in-house rules for conducting investigation of offences of money laundering
Rules are neither necessary nor inevitable for carrying out functions of investigating and prosecuting agencies under Ss. 8 & 9 of Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010
Non-framing of rules does not impair functions of investigating officer in any manner.
In Para. (ix) of Standing Operating Procedure, expression "any other case falling within the purview of NAB irrespective of the amount involved and status of accused person, with prior approval of the Chairman" is added because there may be cases falling below Rs.100 million which cannot be prosecuted by any other agency and as such rather than letting the culprit off Scott free, he should be prosecuted by NAB at the discretion of the Chairman
In cases below Rs.100 million which can be dealt with by other agencies such as Federal Investigation Agency and Anti-Corruption Establishment, High Court expected NAB to send such cases to such alternate agencies for prosecution by virtue of S. 18(d) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999.
For purpose of an inquiry or investigation, the officer so inquiring/investigating would have all the powers as were available with Officer-in-charge of a Police Station under Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 provided under Chapter XIV of the said Code
Inquiry/investigation could be initiated only by the Chairman of the Bureau or an Officer of the NAB duly authorized by him
If an inquiry or investigation was ordered in respect of offence punishable under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 by Chairman NAB, then during the course of said inquiry or investigation of such offence, any officer duly authorized by Chairman, was competent to call for information from any person for the purpose of satisfying himself; whether there had been any contravention of the provisions of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, or any rule or order made thereunder
Mere irregularity or illegality on the part of the Investigating Officer in following procedure within meaning of Chapter XIV of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 would not cost an offence to go unattended; because an irregularity or illegality in procedure could be cured, but not the impacts and effects of an offence, if same was let un-touched, despite its being coming to light
National Accountability Bureau authorities, could not be precluded to issue call-up notices or restrain to conduct an inquiry/investigation
Said authorities were lawfully authorized to conduct inquiry/investigation, and interference into such inquiries/investigations by the NAB authorities would seriously prejudice the prosecution towards its right in probing into an investigation/inquiry of an offence
No illegality or infirmity had been pointed out in the impugned judgments/order
Impugned judgment being well reasoned and well founded, no interference was warranted
Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal by the Supreme Appellate Court and was dismissed.
Constitutional petition under Art. 184(3) of the Constitution seeking direction from the Supreme Court to the Federal Government to lodge a complaint under Art. 6 of the Constitution against General (Retd.) Pervez Musharraf and others for the action imposing state of emergency by him in the country on November 3, 2007
High treason
Inquiry and investigation
Inquiry Committee and Commission, constitution of
Statement filed by Attorney-General in the Supreme Court regarding details of actions envisaged by the Federal Government in regard to the present matter and the process through which such actions would be given effect stated that Prime Minister had directed the Secretary Interior to forthwith direct the Director General of Federal Investigation Agency to constitute a special investigative team of senior officers to commence an inquiry and investigation in relation to the acts of General (R) Pervez Musharraf of 3rd November, 2007 that might amount to "high treason" under Art. 6 of the Constitution and to finalize as expeditiously as possible the statement of case to be put up by the Federal Government before the Special Court to be constituted under the Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1976; that in order to ensure expeditious completion of the inquiry and investigation, the Prime Minister was also considering the constitution of a Commission to oversee and monitor the progress of the proceedings; that on the completion of the investigation, the Federal Government shall file the requisite complaint under S.5 of the Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Act, 1976 and take steps to constitute the Special Court in accordance with S.4 of the said Act for the trial of the offence
Prayer made by the petitioners in the present petition effectively appeared to have been accepted by the (Federal) Government (in view of the statement filed by the Attorney-General)
Attorney-General had stated that the government had constituted an Inquiry Committee comprised of senior functionaries of the Federal Investigation Agency and it would be upto the said Committee to undertake the investigation
Supreme Court observed that it expected that such investigation shall be concluded without unnecessary delay; that court was consciously and deliberately not touching the question of "abrogation" or "subversion" or "holding in abeyance the Constitution" or "any conspiracy in that behalf" or indeed the question of suspending or holding the Constitution in abeyance or the issue as to abetment or collaboration in the acts mentioned in Art. 6 of the Constitution, because any finding/observation or view expressed by the Supreme Court (in such regard) might potentially result in prejudice to the inquiry/investigation or subsequent trial should that take place as a result of such investigation and that the Federal Government shall proceed (with the present matter) as per its undertaking without unnecessary delay
Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.
"Inquiry and investigation", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124942381
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Inquiry and investigation"
P L D 2020 Sindh 601
UNIVERSAL CABLES INDUSTRIES LIMITED through Chief Executive — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and 3 others — Respondents
Court: High Court2013 S C M R 1683
Moulvi IQBAL HAIDER and others — Petitioners Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary M/o Law and Justice and others — Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of PakistanP L D 2017 Sindh 243
SHOAIB WARSI and another — Petitioners Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents
Court: High Court2019 Y L R 1247
JAVED IQBAL — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Interior and 3 others — Respondents
Court: Sindh2014 Y L R 2644
MAQBOOL AHMED SHEIKH and others — Appellants Versus The STATE — Respondent
Court: Sindh2019 C L D 1234
NAUMAN MEHMOOD — Appellant Versus EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CORPORATE SUPERIVISION DEPARTMENT and another — Respondents
Court: Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan1997 P Cr
Dr. SHER DIL BATRA and 2 others — Petitioners Versus DIRECTOR, FEDERAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY, LAHORE and 8 others — Respondents
Court: LahoreP L D 2008 Peshawar 162
MAZHAR ILLAHI — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Court: High Court2023 Y L R 701
NASEEM ANJUM — Petitioner Versus DIRECTOR GENERAL, F.I.A., ISLAMABAD and 8 others — Respondents
Court: IslamabadP L D 2022 Lahore 664
MUNIR AHMAD BHATTI — Petitioner Versus DIRECTOR, FIA CYBER CRIME WING, LAHORE and 3 others — Respondents
Court: High Court