' IBAD-UR-REHMAN LODHI, J.---Petitioner Shams-ur-Rehman son of Akhtar Muhammad seeks post arrest bail in case F.I.R. No,8 of 2013 dated 21-6-2013 under section 4 of Anti-Money Laundering Act 2010, Section 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 and 109, P.P.C., at Police Station, FIA/CBC, Islamabad, based upon F.I.R. No,86 dated 20-6-2013 registered at Police Station Taman, Tehsil Talagang, District Chakwal.
2. This case was originally registered in Police Station Taman, District Chakwal for commission of alleged offence under Section 4 of Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 and section 23 of Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1947 read with section 109 P.P.C. And subsequently being a scheduled offence, the investigation has been carried out by F.I.A in C.B.C. Rawalpindi/Islamabad.
3. The allegation against the present petitioner is that on interception when he was alighted from his car, he was found in possession of 25,61,452 Saudi Riyal, 81,000 Pounds, 6,16,050 Norwegians Krone, 3,71,645 Euro, 2,000 Kuwaiti Dinar, 17,000 Omani Riyal, 9,27,000 Japanese Yen, 1,00,000 Qatari Riyal and 45,000 Denish Krone, and according to the allegations contained in the F.I.R at the relevant time, the petitioner was not in a position to produce any valid certificate of having in possession of such huge foreign exchange.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner first of all referred to a certificate issued by Al Nandi Exchange showing the purchase of the currency from the said money exchange on 22-4-2013. The Investigating Officer of the case has verified such valid purchase of foreign exchange. Learned counsel while referring section 4(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 has argued that where any foreign exchange is acquired by any person other than an authorized dealer for any particular purpose, or where any person has been permitted conditionally to acquire foreign exchange, the said person shall not use the foreign exchange so acquired otherwise than for that purpose. There is no allegation of any misuse of the foreign exchange acquired by the petitioner from an authorized money exchanger. Thus, the offence under section 4 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 does not make out. Further contends in this regard that even otherwise by virtue of section 23 of the said Act, the contravention of section 4(3) of the Act would entail a maximum punishment of two years or with fine or with both and thus keeping in view the maximum sentence provided for such contravention and the fact that the imposition of fine has been provided as an independent sentence, the offence falls outside the scope of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
5. With regard to the offence under section 4 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010, it has been argued that the offence of money laundering has been defined in section 3 of the Act and for every such offence of money laundering, the offending money must be a proceed of crime, whereas according to the allegation nothing has been alleged against the petitioner that the foreign exchange recovered from the possession of the petitioner was in fact a proceed of crime. With regard to the offence under Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010. a punishment in view of section 4 thereof is provided as minimum sentence of one year and at the time of grant of bail, which is to be kept in view is the minimum degree of the sentence provided and on such consideration, the offence falls outside the scope of prohibitory clause of section 497, Cr.P.C.
6. This is a bail after arrest. On all the grounds argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the prosecution has no satisfactory contest and thus, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.
Resultantly, the instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is allowed post arrest bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,10,00,000 (Ten lac only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.