P L D 2026 Islamabad 63

 P L D 2026 Islamabad 63

Before Arbab Muhammad Tahir and Inaam Ameen Minhas, JJ

MUHAMMAD UZAIR ANWAR and 2 others ---Appellants

Versus

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of

Interior, Islamabad and others ---Respondents

I.C.A. No. 362 in W.P. No. 2883 of 2025 and I.C.Hs. Nos. 359, 360 and 361

of 2025, decided on 28th October, 2025.

(a) Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (XL of 2016)---

----S. 29---Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974 (VIII of 1975), S.5---

National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA)---Jurisdiction---

Provisions of Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974---Applicability---

NCCIA is an independent body and no more a subordinate office of

Federal Investigation Agency and has thus stripped of the powers

under S. 5(5) of Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974---NCCIA

derives its existence and authority from Prevention of Electronic

Crimes Act, 2016---NCCIA can exercise only those powers, which are

delegated to it by the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) through

Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016.

(b) Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (XL of 2016)---

----S. 29---Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974 (VIII of 1975), S.5

(5)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 19---Freezing of assets---National

Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA)---Jurisdiction---Appellants /

accused persons were aggrieved of blocking of their bank accounts

during inquiry proceedings initiated by NCCIA on the basis of its

own source report---Validity---Source report did not bifurcate roles

of each appellant / accused in the commission of alleged offences, if

any---Detailed inquiry was required to be conducted by associating

appellants / accused persons in the process, disclosing allegations on

the basis whereof NCCIA initiated criminal proceedings under

Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016---NCCIA proceeded in

haste and directly approached concerned banks for freezing of bank

accounts of appellants / accused persons, which could affect their

rights to property, livelihood and life guaranteed under the

Constitution---Nature of allegations required detailed probe and it

was for Trial Court, if a criminal case was subsequently filed, to

strike a balance between right of appellants / accused persons

protected Art. 19 of the Constitution and the provisions of

Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016---Division Bench of High

Court set aside the order passed by NCCIA whereby bank accounts of appellants / accused persons were blocked on the basis of its own

source report, as the orders were disproportionate, harsh and

unreasonable, particularly to the extent of family members of

persons regarding whom the allegations were levelled---Intra Court

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Mian Ziauddin v. Punjab Local Government and others 1985 SCMR

365; Khawaja Ahmed Hassan v. Government of Punjab and others 2005

SCMR 186; Suo Motu Case No.11/2011, in the matter of National Police

Foundation Land PLD 2014 SC 389; Suo Motu Case No.13/2009 PLD

2011 SC 619; Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited and others v. Said Rehman

and others 2013 SCMR 642; Farrukh Raza Sheikh v. The Appellate

Tribunal Inland Revenue and others 2022 SCMR 1787 and Khawaja

Ahmad Hassan v. Government of Punjab and others 2005 SCMR 186

rel.

Barrister Abdul Qadeer, (in I.C.A. No. 362 of 2025), Barrister Abdul

Ahad Khokher, (in I.C.A. No. 360 of 2025), Muhammad Fiaz Kandwal,

(in I.C.A. No. 359 of 2025), Barrister Mian Ali Ashfaq, (in I.C.A. No. 361

of 2025) for Appellants.

Asif Jadoon, A.A.G. and Wasi Ullah Khan for BoP for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 15th October, 2025.

ORDER

ARBAB MUHAMMAD TAHIR, J.---Through this consolidated

judgment we will decide the instant appeal along with the following

connected matters.-

(i) I.C.A. No. 359-2025, Sajid Nadeem v. Federation of Pakistan

and othes

(ii) I.C.A. No. 360-2025, Makhdoom Muhammad Shahab Ud Din

and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others

(iii) I.C.A. No. 361-2025, Orya Maqbool Abbasi and others v.

Federation of Pakistan and others

2. The appellants, through the Intra Court Appeals preferred under

section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 have impugned

consolidated judgment dated 11.08.2025 passed by the learned Single

Judge whereby Writ Petitions Nos. 2883, 2882, 2884 and 2885 of 2025

filed by the appellants were dismissed.

3. The relevant facts, per the record, are that any inquiry was

initiated by National Cyber Crime Investigating Agency (hereinafter

NCCIA ) on a source report that appellants are involved in online

activities in breach of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016

(hereinafter the 2016-Act ). During pendency of the inquiry, the NCCIA forwarded requests to different Banks to freeze the Bank accounts of

the appellants, which were acted upon accordingly. The appellants

filed writ petitions seeking the relief that the directives issued to the

Banks by the NCCIA for freezing of their Bank accounts be declared

without lawful authority. The said petitions were dismissed by the

learned Single Judge vide the impugned consolidated judgment dated

11.08.2025, hence these Intra Court Appeals.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants have argued that the

impugned action of the NCCIA is violative of rights of appellants

protected under Articles 4, 10A, 19, 24 and 24A of the Constitution; that

the appellants were not confronted with any incriminating material

before initiating the request of freezing of their Bank accounts; that

penalizing the whole families for the alleged wrong of one person is

unconstitutional; that the NCCIA is not vested with any power to

request Banks for freezing of Bank accounts of citizens; that the

impugned order is liable to be set aside.

5. Conversely, learned Assistant Attorney General has argued that

the NCCIA is empowered to request the Banks for freezing of the Bank

accounts of citizens allegedly involved in activities in breach of the

provisions of 2016-Act; the impugned order is well reasoned; the

appeals are liable to be dismissed.

6. Heard. Record perused.

7. The appellants Bank accounts were frozen by the Banks pursuant

to the request of the NCCIA on the grounds that allegedly they are

involved in uploading of Anti State Contents/Posts on social media and

are selling sensitive information to various foreign entities as well as

spreading false and misleading information to general public . The

reasons which prevailed with the learned Single Judge to dismissed

the constitutional petitions are that under the provisions of Anti-

Money Laundering Act, 2010 (hereinafter 2010-Act ) the NCCIA is

empowered to order freezing of the Bank accounts coupled with the

powers conferred by the provisions of the 2016-Act.

8. In order to address the questions of law raised for our

consideration, it would be appropriate to briefly survey the legislative

scheme under which the NCCIA exercises its authority.

9. The NCCIA was formerly known as the National Response Centre

for Cyber Crimes (NR3C), a subordinate wing of the Federal

Investigation Agency. The NCCIA enjoyed the legal cover under the

Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974 (hereinafter 1974-Act ), which

inter alia, included the powers under section 5 of the 1974-Act. The

then NR3C enjoyed the powers simultaneously under the two statutes

i.e. 2016-Act as well as 1974-Act. Relevant to the case in hand is the power under subsection (5) of section 5 of the 1974-Act, which reads as

under.-

If, in the opinion of a member of the Agency conducting an

investigation, any property which is the subject-matter of the

investigation is likely to be removed, transferred or otherwise

disposed of before an order of the appropriate authority for its

seizure is obtained, such member may, by order in writing,

direct the owner or any person who is, for the time being,

possession thereof not to remove, transfer or otherwise dispose

of such property in any manner except with the previous

permission of that member and such order shall be subject to

any order made by the Court having jurisdiction in the matter.

(Highlighted to add emphasis)

It is significant to mention that the expression Agency is defined in

section 2(1) of the 1974-Act as meaning the Federal Investigation

Agency constituted under section 3 thereof. Section 3 of the 1974-Act is

reproduced below.-

3. Constitution of the Agency:

1. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law of

the time being in force, the Federal Government may

constitute an Agency to be called the Federal

Investigation Agency for inquiry into, and investigation

of the offences specified in the Schedule, including an

attempt or conspiracy to commit, and abetment of, any

such offence.

2. The Agency shall consist of a Director General to be

appointed by the Federal Government and such number

of other officers as the Federal Government may, from

time to time, appoint to be members of the Agency.

It is thus clear from the above, that the powers conferred by section

5 of the 1974-Act (freezing of the Bank accounts/property) are

exclusively vested in the officers of the Agency i.e. the Federal

Investigation Agency.

10. Subsequently, the 2016-Act was amended by Prevention of

Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Act, 2025 (the Amendment Act ). By

virtue of section 6 of the Amendment Act, section 29 of the 2016-Act

was substituted; subsection (1) whereof provides that the Federal

Government shall establish an investigation agency to be called the

National Cyber Crimes Investigation Agency (NCCIA). In pursuance of

section 29(5), the Federal Government vide S.R.O. 748(I)/2025, dated

29.04.2025 has duly established the NCCIA for investigation of the offences under the 2016-Act. For the sake of convenience, the same is

reproduced below.-

S.R.O. 748(I)/2025.- In exercise of powers conferred by section 29 of

the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 (XL of 2016) read

with subsection (5) thereof, the Federal Government is pleased

to establish the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency for

the purposes of Investigation of the offences under the said Act

w. e. f. 04-04-2025.

This demonstrates that the NCCIA is now an independent body and

no more a subordinate office of the Federal Investigation Agency and

has thus stripped of the powers under the 1974-Act, particularly

section 5(5) thereof.

11. The NCCIA derives its existence and authority from the 2016-Act.

This signifies that the NCCIA shall exercise only those powers, which

are delegated to it by the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) through the

2016-Act. Likewise, in terms of section 2(xviii) of section 2 of the 2010-

Act, the Federal Government vide S.R.O. 1647(I)/2025 dated 28.08.2025

has notified the NCCIA as the investigating and prosecuting agency

under the referred Act. Furthermore, in exercised of the powers

conferred by section 42 of the 2010-Act, the Federal Government

through S.R.O. 1648(I)/2025, dated 28.08.2025 inserted section XV

Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 in Schedule-I to section

2(xxvi) of the 2010-Act which includes the offences under sections 10,

14, 16, 17, 22, 22A, 22B, 22C and 26A of the 2016-Act.

12. Section 2(xxiii) of the 2010-Act defines the offence of money

laundering as the same offence defined in section 3 thereof. The

expression proceeds of crime has been defined in clause (xxvii) of

section 2 as meaning any property derived or obtained directly or

indirectly by any person from the commission of a predicate offence

or foreign serious offence. The term predicate offence has been

defined in clause (xxvi) of section 2 as meaning the offences specified

in Schedule-I to the 2010-Act. Section 3 of the 2010-Act provides that a

person shall be guilty of the offence of money laundering, if (i) he

acquires, converts, possesses, uses or transfers property, knowing or

having reason to believe that such property is proceeds of crime; (ii)

conceals or disguises the true nature, origin, location, disposition,

movement or ownership of property, knowing or having reason to

believe that such property is proceeds of crime; (iii) holds or possesses

on behalf of any other person any property knowing or having reason

to believe that such property is proceeds of crime and (iv) participates in, associates, conspires or commit, attempts to commit, aids, abets,

facilitates, or counsels the commission of the referred acts.

13. In terms of section 8 of the 2010-Act, the investigating

officer/prosecution agency, with the approval of the "Court", can

provisionally attach the property involved in money laundering for a

period not exceeding one hundred and eighty days from the date of

the order. This period, however, can further be extended for a period

of one hundred and eighty days. Subsection (3) of section 8 of the 2010-

Act provides that the attachment order passed by the investigating

officer shall seize to have effect on expiry of the stipulated period or

the time, subject to subsections (2) and (3) of section 9 of the 2010- Act.

Under section 9(2) if the investigating officer/prosecution agency

determines during the investigations that the properties provisionally

attached are involved in money laundering, then he shall apply to the

Court under section 9(3) of the Act of 2010 for confirmation of the

attachment till conclusion of the trial. The expression Court has been

defined as Court specified under section 20 of the 2010-Act i.e. the

Court of Sessions.

14. Unlike the provisions of 2010-Act and the 1974-Act, the

provisions of 2016-Act do not expressly empower the NCCIA to attach,

caution or freeze properties of citizens, pending

inquiries/investigations. The NCCIA appears to have assumed this

power pursuant to rule 5 of the National Cyber Crime Investigation

Agency (Function) Rules, 2025 (hereinafter the Rules ) framed in

exercise of powers conferred by section 51 of the 2016-Act read with

sections 27 and 29 thereof, notified vide S.R.O 1639(I)/2025 published

in the official gazette on 28.08.2025. For the sake of convenience, rule 5

of Rules is reproduced below.-

5. Powers of the members of the NCCIA. (1) The NCCIA conducting

an inquiry or investigation may freeze a property, directly

connected to commission of an offence under the Act.

(2) Prior permission shall be obtained from the authorized officer as

designated by the Director General before freezing or de-

freezing of the property.

(3) Any contravention of order made under sub-rule (2) shall be

punishable under section 174 or 188 of Pakistan Penal Code (Act

XLV of 1860).

15. Bare perusal of sections 27 of 2016-Act shows that the same deals

with legal recognition of offences committed in relation to information

system. Likewise, section 28 relates to application of provisions of

Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 to the offence provided in the 2010-Act.

Section 52 of the 2016-Act, however, empowers the Federal Government to make rules for carrying out purpose of the Act, including the subjects

mentioned in subsection (2) thereof, which is reproduced below.-

51. Power to make rules. (1) The Federal Government may, by

notification in the official Gazette, make rules for carrying out

purposes of this Act.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing powers, such

rules may specify,

(a) qualifications and trainings of the officers and staff of the

investigation agency and prosecutors;

(b) powers, functions and responsibilities of the investigation

agency, its officers and prosecutors;

(c) standard, operating procedures of the investigation agency;

(d) mode and manner in which record of investigation under

this Act may be maintained;

(e) manner to deal with the seized data, information system,

device or other articles;

(f) working of joint investigation teams;

(g) requirements for seeking permission of the Authority to

change, alter or re-programme unique device identifier of any communication equipment by any person for research

or any other legitimate purpose;

(h) procedure for seeking appropriate order of the Authority for

removal, or blocking of online content;

(i) constitution of computer emergency response team and the

standard operating procedure to be adopted by such team;

(j) appointment of designated agency having capability to collect

real time information;

(k) manner of coordination between the investigation agency

and other law enforcement and intelligence agencies

including designated agency;

(l) for management and oversight of the forensic laboratory;

(m) qualifications and trainings of the officers, experts and staff

of the forensic laboratory;

(n) powers, functions and responsibilities of the forensic

laboratory, its officers, experts and staff;

(o) standard operating procedures of the forensic laboratory to

interact with the investigation agency;

(p) manner of soliciting and extending international

cooperation;

(q) matters connected or ancillary thereto; and

(r) provision of fines for contravention of the provisions of this

Act and rules made thereunder.

16. It is highlighted here that the collection and preservation of

data/evidence relating to the commission of offences under the 2016-

Act is different from freezing of the properties i.e. Bank accounts of

persons, for which express sanction of the Legislature in the parent

statute i.e. 2016-Act is required. There is plethora of judgments

1 that

subordinate legislation shall neither be in conflict with the provisions

of parent statute nor travel beyond its permissible scope and that the

rule making authority shall not act as Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) to

assume powers not delegated by the parent law. Rule 5 of the Rules

thus appears to have been framed in excess of the powers delegated by

sections 27, 28 and 51 of the 2016-Act.

17. The NCCIA appears to have diverted the process prescribed

under the 2010-Act. In case, the NCCIA was of the view that the

amounts available in the Bank accounts of the appellants were the

proceeds of crime (as defined section 2(xxvii) of 2010-Act) or derived

out of the predicate offences (as provided in section XV of Schedule-I to section 2(xxvi) of the 2010-Act) then the proper course was to obtain

an order of the Court in terms of section 8 of the 2010-Act.

18. The inquiry was initiated by the NCCIA on the basis of its own

source report, which did not bifurcated the roles of each appellant in

the commission of alleged offences, if any. In fact, a detailed inquiry

was required to be conducted by associating the appellants in the

process, disclosing the allegations on the basis whereof the NCCIA

initiated criminal proceedings under the 2016-Act. Instead, the NCCIA

proceeded in haste and directly approached the concerned Banks for

freezing of the Bank accounts of appellants, which may affect their

rights to property, livelihood and life guaranteed under the

Constitution. Further, the nature of allegations required detailed probe

and it is for the trial court, if a criminal case is subsequently filed, to

strike a balance between the right of appellants protected Article 19 of

the Constitution and the provisions of the 2016-Act. In the attending

circumstances, we conclude that the impugned action of NCCIA

whereby the Bank accounts of appellants were blocked on the basis of

its own source report was disproportionate, harsh and unreasonable,

particularly to the extent of family members of persons regarding

whom the allegations were levelled. The impugned judgment is,

therefore, liable to be set-aside.

19. For what has been discussed above, the Intra Court Appeals are

allowed. Consequently, the impugned judgment is hereby set-aside.

The respondents are directed to unfreeze/unblock the Bank accounts

of the appellants forthwith. The NCCIA is directed to proceed with the

inquiry strictly in accordance with law.

MH/207/Isl. Intra Court Appeals allowed.