IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE MUSHIR ALAM 
MR. JUSTICE SARDAR TARIQ MASOOD 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 994 OF 2020 
(On appeal against judgment dated 29.11.2019 passed 
by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Criminal 
Revision No. 244-P/2019) 
 
The State through Director General FIA, Islamabad 
 
… Petitioner 
VERSUS 
Alif Rehman 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
… Respondent 
 
For the Petitioner: 
Mr. Sajid Ilyas Bhatti, Addl. Attorney 
General   
 
Ch. Akhtar Ali, AOR 
 
Syed Kashif Ali, Inspector FIA, Peshawar 
 
For the Respondent: 
Mr. Arshad Hussain Yousafzai, ASC 
 
On Court Notice:  
Mr. Awais, in person 
 
Date of Hearing:  
15.01.2021 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.-  
 
Criminal M.A. No. 1587/2020: For reasons mentioned in this 
application, it is allowed and the delay in filing the Criminal 
Petition No. 2078/2020 is condoned.  
 
Criminal Petition No. 994/2020: The petitioner Department has 
filed this petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic 
Republic of Pakistan, 1973, and has sought indulgence of this 
Court while calling in question the legality of the impugned 
judgment dated 29.11.2019 passed by the learned Peshawar High 
Court, Peshawar, whereby the Criminal Revision filed by the 
respondent was allowed. 
2. 
 
Briefly stated the facts of the matter are that on a 
secret information it was pointed out that the respondent is 
involved in foreign currency exchange without having any 
permission from the concerned authorities and as such he is liable 
Criminal Petition No. 994/2020 
2
to be proceeded against in terms of Foreign Exchange Regulation 
Act, 1947. In pursuance of the said information, a raid was 
conducted and respondent was found in possession of foreign 
currency of Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, as such a case FIR No. 
36/2019 dated 28.08.2019 was registered under Sections 4/23 of 
the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1947 at Police Station 
FIA/CBC, Peshawar. It is worth mentioning that during the raid, 
Saudi Riyals to the tune of 1,57,500/- and Pakistan currency to 
the tune of Rs.42,66,000/-, which was being utilized in lieu of 
exchange, was taken into possession by the raiding party. In this 
regard, seizure memo was duly prepared by the Investigating 
Officer. During the course of proceedings, the accusation against 
the respondent was found correct and as such report in terms of 
Section 173 Cr.P.C was submitted in the case which is still 
pending adjudication before the court of first instance. An 
application for superdari of the said amount was moved and the 
learned Trial Court vide order dated 19.10.2019 declined to deliver 
the Saudi Riyals, however, ordered return of Pakistani currency to 
the respondent. The order of the learned Additional Sessions 
Judge-VII, Peshawar, was assailed before the High Court through 
Criminal Revision, which was allowed vide impugned order dated 
29.11.2019. Hence, this petition seeking leave to appeal.  
3. 
 
The crux of the arguments advanced by the learned 
Additional Attorney General is that the learned High Court has not 
taken into consideration that the exchange of currency without 
approval of the concerned authority is prohibited in terms of 
Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947;  that the learned Trial 
Court while passing the order dated 19.10.2019 has relied upon 
the statement of co-accused Khan Bahadar, which was to the effect 
that he has no objection if the currency is returned to the 
respondent, and ordered return of Pakistani currency to the 
respondent, which was not tenable in law; that the Pakistani 
currency was being used as an exchange currency of Saudi Riyals, 
which was also seized by the FIA authorities; that the learned 
Courts have not assigned any plausible reason while ordering 
return of Pakistani as well as Saudi currency to the respondent 
and the same are liable to be set aside.  
Criminal Petition No. 994/2020 
3
4. 
 
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on 
behalf of the respondent tried to controvert the arguments 
advanced by the learned Law Officer but could not substantiate 
any legal justification.  
5. 
 
We have heard learned Law Officer as also learned 
counsel for the respondent and have gone through the record.  
6. 
 
To evaluate the legality of the order passed by the 
learned High Court, it would be imperative to reproduce the 
Preamble of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. The same 
reads as under:- 
 
“An Act to regulate certain payments, dealings in foreign 
exchange and Securities and the import and export of 
currency and bullion. 
 
Whereas it is expedient in the economic and financial 
interests of Pakistan to provide for the regulation of certain 
payments, dealings in foreign exchange and securities and 
the import and export of currency and bullion;” 
 
7. 
 
A mechanism has been devised to avail the benefits of 
such legislation, which could regulate the exchange of foreign 
currency, which otherwise can be beneficial for the economic and 
financial interest of the State. However, any deviation while 
defeating the mechanism devised would adversely affect the 
interest causing hazardous affect and result into financial debacle. 
Any person who is citizen of Pakistan is authorized to establish 
business of foreign currency notes subject to moving an 
application to the State Bank of Pakistan on a prescribed form 
after 
payment 
of 
a 
prescribed 
fee 
seeking 
permission/authorization. The method is duly mentioned in 
Section 3A of the Act, which is reproduced as under:- 
 
“3A. Authorized money changers in foreign exchange.  
 
(1) The State Bank may, on application made to it in this 
behalf, and on payment of a fee prescribed by it, from time to 
time, authorize any person to deal in foreign currency notes 
and coins.  
 
(2) The power conferred under sub-section (1) shall be 
exercised 
on 
the 
basis 
of 
criteria 
prescribed, 
and 
recommendations made, by a committee consisting of such 
official and non-official representatives as may be nominated 
by the State Bank.  
 
Criminal Petition No. 994/2020 
4
(3) An authorization made under this section may be for a 
specific period of time, which may be renewed thereafter.  
 
(4) An authorized money changer shall, in all his dealings 
under the authorization, comply with such general or special 
directions or instructions as the State Bank may, from time to 
time, think fit to give including those for supply of data, the 
rate and code of conduct in doing business. Failure to comply 
with the instructions may lead to suspension of the licence or 
other actions as necessary.” 
 
8. 
 
Similarly the exchange companies can be formed. The 
procedure is almost the same, which is provided in Section 3AA of 
the Act. The same reads as under:- 
 
“3AA. Exchange Companies.—(1) The State Bank may, on 
application made to it in this behalf, and on payment of such 
fee as it may, from time to time prescribe, authorize any 
company to deal in foreign currency notes, coins, postal 
notes, money orders, bank drafts, travellers cheques and 
transfers.  
 
(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the expression 
“company” means a company having been formed and 
registered under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 (XLVII of 
1984) pursuant to no objection certificate issued by the State 
Bank in respect thereof to the Securities and Exchange 
Commission of Pakistan upon receiving an intimation from 
the said Commission that it has received an application for 
the formation of the company.  
 
(3) The power conferred under sub-section (1) shall be 
exercised on the basis of the eligibility criteria prescribed for 
exchange companies by the State Bank.  
 
(4) Exchange Companies shall, in all their dealings, comply 
with—  
 
(i) 
the terms and conditions of the authorizations 
issued to them under sub-section (1); and  
 
(ii) 
such 
general 
or 
special 
directions 
or 
instructions as the State Bank may, from time 
to time, issue including those set out in the 
circulars and foreign exchange manual of the 
State Bank. 
 
(5) Failure to comply with any such terms and conditions, 
directions or instructions imposed, given or issued may lead 
to suspension of authorization or any other action as deemed 
necessary by the State Bank.” 
 
9. 
 
A bare reading of aforesaid provisions would show that 
there is an ample opportunity to enter into the business of foreign 
currency while crossing over the required legal impediments 
subject to satisfaction and authorization by the State Bank of 
Criminal Petition No. 994/2020 
5
Pakistan. However, we have noticed that in the instant case, the 
respondent neither sought any permission nor produced any 
document during raid or afterwards during investigation. It has 
been apprised to us that the report in terms of Section 173 Cr.P.C. 
has already been submitted before the Court of competent 
jurisdiction and trial of the case is likely to be commenced in near 
future. We are in agreement with the learned Additional Attorney 
General that the learned High Court has extended artificial 
reasoning while passing the impugned judgment and the same is 
not supported by the law of the land. As the matter of dealing in 
foreign exchange is of grave importance, which is also linked with 
the national interest, an amendment has been brought to Section 
23 of the Act on 26.02.2020 whereby after the word ‘with’ the word 
‘rigorous’ has been inserted in Section 23(1) and the punishment 
for the delinquents who contravene or attempt to contravene or 
abet the contravention of any of the provision of the Act has been 
enhanced from 2 years to 5 years. In view of the facts and 
circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the 
order passed by the learned High Court is totally in disregard of 
the facts and law and the same is not sustainable in the eyes of 
law. So far as the issue of Pakistani currency is concerned, prima 
facie it was being used as an exchange currency for Saudi Riyals, 
otherwise, there seems no reason for keeping such a huge amount 
in the shop. The matter of handing over the Pakistani currency has 
not been challenged before us. However, for doing complete justice, 
this Court under Article 187 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic 
of Pakistan, 1973, can pass any order or a direction which it 
deems appropriate. The framers of the Constitution while inserting 
the aforesaid Constitutional provision in-fact had assigned 
unfettered powers for a purpose which squarely comes within the 
ambit of complete justice stricto sensu. The said Article reads as 
under:- 
“187. (1) 
Subject to clause (2) of Article 175, the 
Supreme Court shall have power to issue such directions, 
orders or decrees as may be necessary for doing complete 
justice in any case or matter pending before it, including an 
order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any 
person or the discovery or production of any document. 
(2) 
Any such direction, order or decree shall be 
enforceable throughout Pakistan and shall, where it is to be 
Criminal Petition No. 994/2020 
6
executed in a Province, or a territory or an area not forming 
part of a Province but within the jurisdiction of the High 
Court of the Province, be executed as if it had been issued 
by the High Court of that Province.  
(3) 
If a question arises as to which High Court shall give 
effect to a direction, order or decree of the Supreme Court, 
the decision of the Supreme Court on the question shall be 
final.”   
 
10. 
 
In such like cases, this Court in exercise of its 
inherent jurisdiction under Article 187(1) of the Constitution is 
required to do complete justice, which must prevail ignoring 
technicalities. This Court in the case of Khalid Iqbal Vs. Mirza 
Khan (PLD 2015 SC 50) has categorically held that the power of 
this Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Articles 187, 
184(3) & 188 of the Constitution is not dependant upon an 
application of a party. In the case of Muhammad Zahid Vs. 
Muhammad Ali (PLD 2014 SC 488) while relying on earlier 
judgments of this Court, it was held by this Court that "the 
approach in all these cases leads to one conclusion that this Court in 
matter of doing complete justice has not been handicapped by any 
technicality nor by a rule of practice.” In the case of Martin Dow 
Marker Ltd, Quetta Vs. Asadullah Khan (2020 SCMR 2147) while 
relying on the earlier judgments, this Court held as under:- 
“This Court under Article 187(1) of the Constitution has 
the power to issue such directions, orders or decrees, as 
may be necessary for doing complete justice and in 
doing so, the Court is also empowered to look at the 
changed circumstances of the case as it has appeared 
before it and also to mould relief as is just and proper 
for meeting the ends of justice. Reference in this regard 
is made to the case of Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi v. Mian 
Muhammad Nawaz Shlarif, Prime Minister of Pakistan 
and 9 others [PLD 2017 SC 265]; Muhammad Zahid v. 
Dr. Muhammad Ali [PLD 2014 SC 488]; Dossani Travels 
(Pvt.) Ltd. and others v. Messrs Travels Shop (Pvt.) Ltd. 
and others [PLD 2014 SC 1]; Mst. Amatul Begum v. 
Muhammad Ibrahim. Shaikh [2004 SCMR 1934] and 
Imam Bakhsh and 2 others v. Allah Wasaya and 2 
others [2002 SCMR 1985]. 
13.  We may note that in exercising the jurisdiction to do 
complete justice and to issue directions, orders or 
decrees, as may be necessary, this Court is not bound 
by any procedural technicality when a glaring fact is 
very much established on the record and even stand 
admitted. Reference in this regard is made to the case of 
Muhammad Shafi v. Muhammad Hussain [2001 SCMR 
827]; Gul Usman and 2 others v. Mst. Ahmero and 11 
others [2000 SCMR 866] and S.A.M. Wahidi v. 
Criminal Petition No. 994/2020 
7
Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Finance and 
others [1999 SCMR 1904].” 
 
11. 
 
For what has been discussed above, we convert this 
petition into appeal, allow it and set aside the impugned judgment 
of the learned Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, dated 29.11.2019 
as also the order of the learned Trial Court dated 19.10.2019. The 
application of the respondent for superdari to the extent of 
Pakistani currency, already handed over to the respondent, shall 
be deemed to be pending before the learned Trial Court and shall 
be decided afresh by a judicious order after affording an 
opportunity of hearing to both the parties strictly in the spirit of 
the law.  
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the  
15th of January, 2021 
Approved For Reporting 
Khurram