The document summarizes 5 cases related to the Federal Investigation Agency Act 1974. The first case dismissed a frivolous petition against FIA and imposed costs on the involved inspector. The second case acquitted a defendant because the seizure in his case was unlawful due to a violation of search warrant requirements. The third case granted bail to accused in a Hawala case, noting the absence of exceptional circumstances. The fourth case quashed criminal cases because FIA violated rules in transferring the cases from police. The fifth case quashed an FIR because FIA lacked authority to investigate offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code that were alongside electronic crimes charges.
The document summarizes 5 cases related to the Federal Investigation Agency Act 1974. The first case dismissed a frivolous petition against FIA and imposed costs on the involved inspector. The second case acquitted a defendant because the seizure in his case was unlawful due to a violation of search warrant requirements. The third case granted bail to accused in a Hawala case, noting the absence of exceptional circumstances. The fourth case quashed criminal cases because FIA violated rules in transferring the cases from police. The fifth case quashed an FIR because FIA lacked authority to investigate offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code that were alongside electronic crimes charges.
The document summarizes 5 cases related to the Federal Investigation Agency Act 1974. The first case dismissed a frivolous petition against FIA and imposed costs on the involved inspector. The second case acquitted a defendant because the seizure in his case was unlawful due to a violation of search warrant requirements. The third case granted bail to accused in a Hawala case, noting the absence of exceptional circumstances. The fourth case quashed criminal cases because FIA violated rules in transferring the cases from police. The fifth case quashed an FIR because FIA lacked authority to investigate offenses under the Pakistan Penal Code that were alongside electronic crimes charges.
1. F.I.A. through Director General, FIA VS Syed HAMID ALI SHAH Citation: 2023 PLD 265 SUPREME-COURT: The petition was deemed meritless and vexatious, constituting harassment. The Supreme Court, emphasizing the impact of frivolous petitions on judicial efficiency, dismissed the leave to appeal, imposing costs of Rs.100,000 on the Inspector from FIA personally involved, to be paid to the respondents. 2. State VS MUHAMMAD JUMA Citation: 2023 PCrLJ 1388 QUETTA- HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN: The appeal against the acquittal was based on an illegal raid without a search warrant. The High Court held that the violation of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act rendered the seizure unlawful, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. 3. AZEEM KHAN VS State Citation: 2023 YLR 1447 LAHORE-HIGH- COURT-LAHORE: Accused in a Hawala/Hundi case sought bail. The High Court granted bail, noting the absence of exceptional circumstances. The accused, low-wage employees, had no unusual transactions, and the offense under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act did not warrant denial of bail. 4. NASEEM ANJUM VS DIRECTOR GENERAL, F.I.A., ISLAMABAD Citation: 2023 YLR 701 ISLAMABAD: The High Court quashed criminal cases as FIA violated rules while transferring cases from the police. The court emphasized compliance with Police Rules and FIA Act, setting aside cases registered without proper procedure. 5. JAVAD KHAN VS State Citation: 2023 PCrLJ 1092 ISLAMABAD: FIA lacked authority to investigate offences under PPC alongside electronic crimes. The High Court quashed the FIR, directing FIA to seek permission for electronic crime charges and allowing the police to handle PPC offences.