Muhammad Rizwan Vs Federation of Pakistan etc.

Muhammad Rizwan Federation of Pakistan, etc.

17.09.2026 Qazi Umair Ali, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rafaqat Ali Dogar, Deputy Attorney General on Court’s call.

Through the instant petition filed under article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973; the petitioner has made the following prayers: - “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed, in the interests of justice, that this Honourable Court may be pleased to:

(a)Declare that the Impugned Notice is illegal, unlawful, without jurisdiction and of no legal effect;

(b)Set aside the Impugned Notice as being illegal, unlawful, without jurisdiction and of no legal effect;

(c)Declare that the Impugned Enquiry is illegal, unlawful, without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.

(d)Set aside the Impugned Enquiry as being illegal, unlawful, without jurisdiction and of no legal effect;

(e)Pending disposal of the Petition, suspend the Impugned Notice and the Impugned Enquiry;

(f)Quash the Impugned Enquiry against the Petitioner in the interest of justice and on the ground of abuse of process and being without jurisdiction;

(g)Direct Respondents No.2 and 3 to forthwith return the seized/confiscated article(s) of the Petitioner;

(h)Restrain the Respondents, their officers/agents and/or authorized representatives and any other individual etc. from taking any coercive/adverse action against the Petitioner including but not limited to the unlawful arrest and detention of the Petitioner;

(i)Grant such other relief as this Honourable Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case;

(j)Grant costs of the petition.”

2.Heard.

3.The petitioner is facing an inquiry being conducted by the National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes (Amendment) Act, 2025, and has challenged both the call-up notice issued to him and the inquiry proceedings. A perusal of the record reveals that, on 08.09.2026, respondent No. 3 served upon the petitioner a notice under Section 160, Cr.P.C., in Inquiry No. ENQ-CCRC-LHR-3780/26, requiring him to appear on 10.09.2026 to record his version and clarify the allegations. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner duly complied with the notice and appeared before respondent No. 3 on 10.09.2026.

4.The impugned notice indicates that respondent No. 3 is conducting an inquiry into online betting and gambling relating to cricket in Pakistan and requires the petitioner’s statement in that regard. The learned Law Officer submits that the inquiry presently concerns allegations of electronic fraud falling within the ambit of Section 14 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, and emanates from information allegedly obtained during cyber patrolling, which purportedly connects the petitioner with the matter and warrants further inquiry. At this stage, the Court considers it appropriate to exercise caution and permit the competent agency to proceed with the inquiry into the allegations falling within the scope of Section 14 (Wrongful Gain) of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner further

submits that the petitioner submitted his reply through a letter dated 14.09.2026. He contends that the Anti-Corruption Unit (ACU) of the International Cricket Council (ICC) is responsible for providing a coordinated and effective framework for protecting cricket and its participants from corruption, and that the matter has not been reported to the ACU, which, according to him, is the relevant authority to deal with such allegations. Section 1.11 of the International Cricket Council’s Anti-Corruption Code for Participants provides as follows:

“1.11 This Anti-Corruption Code does not establish criminal laws but rather disciplinary rules of professional conduct for those involved in the sport of cricket. However, Corrupt Conduct may also be a criminal offence and/or a breach of other applicable laws or regulations. The Anti- Corruption Code is intended to supplement such laws and regulations. It is not intended, and should not be interpreted, construed or applied, to prejudice or undermine in any way the application of such laws and regulations. Participants must comply with all applicable laws and regulations at all times.”

When Section 1.11 of the ICC Anti-Corruption Code is read in conjunction with Section 14 of the PECA, it becomes apparent that a participant cannot seek to avoid criminal proceedings by relying upon the provisions of the said Code. On the contrary, even to qualify for Substantial Assistance under Article 6.1.2, a Participant is required to: (a) fully disclose, in a signed witness statement, all information in his possession relating to offences under the Anti-Corruption Code and/or information which the relevant Designated Anti- Corruption Official reasonably considers may assist in its enforcement; and (b) reasonably cooperate, upon request, with the Prosecuting Authority, the ICC, any relevant Designated

Anti-Corruption Official, or any criminal or regulatory authority in the investigation and adjudication of any matter relating to such information. Thus, the very Code upon which the petitioner seeks to rely, obligates a Participant to assist and cooperate, upon request, with the prosecuting authority or any competent criminal or regulatory authority. The existence of the ICC’s disciplinary framework, therefore, does not, at this stage, operate as a bar to an inquiry by a competent state agency under the applicable law.

5.A call-up notice is a written instrument through which an inquiry or investigation requires a suspect, witness, or custodian of relevant material to appear in connection with a pending inquiry or investigation. It does not, by itself, constitute an accusation of wrongdoing; rather, it is a procedural mechanism for gathering information, examining persons acquainted with the facts, and, where necessary, requiring the production of relevant documents or material.

6.In the present case, the notice was issued on 08.09.2026, requiring the petitioner to appear on 10.09.2026. Learned counsel for the petitioner has acknowledged that the petitioner appeared before respondent No. 3 on the specified date, presented his stance, and subsequently submitted a written statement on 14.09.2026. Inquiry proceedings are neither corum non judice i.e. without jurisdiction nor tainted with any malice or malafide intent, rather for uncovering and eradicating corruption in the sports, hence, same cannot be interfered at its infancy, particularly where the competent authority is yet to complete the process of inquiry and determine whether any further action is warranted. However, if petitioner will have any grievance with final come out of the

inquiry, than he would be at liberty to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law. The petitioner is, therefore, directed to join and cooperate with the inquiry proceedings. At the same time, respondent No.3 shall ensure that the petitioner is not subjected to any harassment or unnecessary inconvenience and that the inquiry is conducted strictly in accordance with law.

7.Insofar as the prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the return of the articles seized or confiscated from the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner may avail an appropriate remedy before the court of competent jurisdiction.

8.For the foregoing reasons, the instant petition stands dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

(Aalia Neelum) Chief Justice Approved for reporting

Chief Justice This order has been dictated, pronounced, prepared, and signed on 17.09.2026

Ikram*