2026 P Cr. L J 790

 2026 P Cr. L J 790

[Balochistan]

Before Rozi Khan Barrech, C.J. and Sardar Ahmed Haleemi, J

MUHAMMAD MUHSIN---Petitioner

Versus

DIRECTOR, FEDERAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY (FIA), QUETTA---

Respondent

Constitution Petition No. 448 of 2024, decided on 27th October, 2025.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

----Ss. 160 & 403--- General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 26---

Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 4, 9, 13 & 14--- Constitutional petition-

-- Notice, quashing of--- Double jeopardy, principle of---

Applicability--- Petitioner was aggrieved of notice under S.160,

Cr.P.C., issued by authorities to join inquiry proceedings in the

matter which had already been decided by a Court of competent

jurisdiction---Validity---Notice issued under S.160, Cr.P.C. without

disclosing any precise allegation or supporting documentation, only

underscores arbitrary and flawed nature of proceedings---Law

requires an investigation agency to act on the basis of some

credible information or material--- Mere suspicion or reference in a

general report cannot be a substitute for legally admissible and

probative evidence---In absence of such material, continuation of

inquiry served no purpose other than to cause mental anguish,

reputational injury and financial hardship to petitioner--- Repeated

and unjustified initiation of proceedings against petitioner,

particularly in absence of new material, not only infringed upon his

fundamental right to fair treatment under the law but also violated

fundamental rights guaranteed under Arts. 4, 9 & 14 of the

Constitution--- Petitioner had already been tried and acquitted on

the same set of facts and any subsequent prosecution on identical

grounds was barred by Constitutional safeguard under doctrine of

double jeopardy--- Initiation of fresh proceedings in absence of any

new material evidence had violated the Constitutional fundamental

rights guaranteed under Art.13 (a) of the Constitution read with

S.403, Cr.P.C. and S.26 of General Clauses Act, 1897--- High Court

declared inquiry in question as without lawful authority based on a

defective inquiry / investigation and of no legal effect--- High Court

quashed notice under S.160, Cr.P.C. issued to petitioner by

authorities--- Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Abdul Malik and others v. The State and others PLD 2006 SC 365 rel. Rehmatullah Miankhail for Petitioner.

Anwar Naseem Kasi, Deputy Attorney General along with Umer

Saeed, Assistant Director Legal FIA for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 6th October, 2025.

JUDGMENT

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.