LHC orders NCCIA not to harass Rizwan amid online betting inquiry

However, the court directed Rizwan to join and cooperate with the proceedings, while ordering the agency not to harass or unnecessarily inconvenience him. Rizwan had challengedthe NCCIA call-up notice and the inquiry proceedings, seeking their annulment and an order restraining the authorities from taking any coercive action against him.

The record showed that the agency had issued him a notice on September 8, requiring him to appear on September 10 to record his version and clarify the allegations. The court noted that Rizwan appeared before the agency on the specified date and subsequently submitted a written statement on September 14.

Read More:LHC refuses to hear Rizwan’s plea against NCCIA proceedings. According to the order, the NCCIA is investigating allegations of online betting and gambling relating to cricket in Pakistan.

The law officer submitted that the inquiry concerned alleged electronic fraud under Section 14 of PECA and had originated from information purportedly obtained through cyber patrolling, which allegedly connected Rizwan with the matter.

Rizwan’s counsel argued that the International Cricket Council’s Anti-Corruption Unit (ACU) was the relevant authority for dealing with such allegations and that the matter had not been reported to it. The court, however, observed that the ICC Anti-Corruption Code itself did not bar criminal proceedings by state authorities.

Referring to Section 1.11 of the Code, it held that the disciplinary framework was intended to supplement, rather than undermine, applicable laws and regulations. The judgment further noted that the ICC Code requires participants, upon request, to cooperate with the prosecuting authority, the ICC and any criminal or regulatory authority investigating matters covered by the Code.

The court held that the existence of the ICC’s disciplinary mechanism therefore did not prevent a competent state agency from conducting an inquiry under Pakistani law. Explaining the legal nature of the call-up notice, the court said such a notice was a procedural mechanism for gathering information and did not, by itself, constitute an accusation of wrongdoing.

The court observed that the inquiry was still at an initial stage and the competent authority had yet to complete the process or determine whether any further action was warranted. It therefore declined to interfere with the proceedings.

Rizwan was given liberty to avail himself of an appropriate legal remedy if he had any grievance with the final outcome of the inquiry. Regarding his request for the return of articles seized or confiscated from him, the court directed him to seek an appropriate remedy before the competent court.

The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.