Special Courts, Prosecution and Trial Procedure Under the Act

Once an authorised officer’s investigation produces a written report, an offence under the Virtual Assets Act 2026 moves into a trial process that departs from an ordinary criminal case in three respects: who may hear it, who prosecutes it, and how quickly it must move. Sections 54(7), 54(8) and 58 of the Act set out that process.

The Act does not create a wholly new court system. It borrows the existing criminal-procedure framework — the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 — and layers a small number of Act-specific features on top: a defined term for the court that may hear these cases, a dedicated prosecutor, and a tight limit on how long a hearing can be adjourned.

For a licensee or Key Individual facing charges under the Act, these features change what a trial actually looks like in practice, even though the underlying evidentiary and procedural law is the same law that applies to any other criminal matter in Pakistan.

What is a Special Court under the Act?

A Special Court is a court notified by the Federal Government to take cognizance of an offence mentioned under the Act. Section 3(1)(xxviii) defines the term this way, and section 54(8) gives the Federal Government the power to act on it: the Federal Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, designate one or more Special Courts to exercise jurisdiction over offences committed under the Act.

The Act does not itself name a Special Court, set a minimum number, or specify how many will exist nationally. Designation happens by gazette notification at the Federal Government’s discretion, which means the practical answer to “which court hears a case under this Act” depends on a notification issued outside the Act itself, and a reader should verify the current designation with the Federal Government’s published notifications rather than assume a specific court from the statute alone.

How are offences under the Act investigated and tried by default?

All offences punishable under the Act are investigated, tried and punished in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, unless the Act itself provides otherwise. Section 54(7) sets this baseline. It means the Act is not a self-contained criminal code — it defines the offences and penalties, but leans on the general criminal-procedure and evidence law of Pakistan for everything else, departing from that general law only where the Act expressly says so.

The two departures the Act does make are the special public prosecutor under section 58(1) and the adjournment cap under section 58(4), both discussed below. Outside those specific points, an accused person’s rights and the court’s procedure follow the same rules that apply to any prosecution under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.

Who prosecutes a case under the Act?

All prosecutions under the Act are conducted by a special public prosecutor appointed by the Federal Government. Section 58(1) also allows advocates appointed by the Division concerned to institute or defend cases, appeals, petitions and applications arising from proceedings under the Act before any court, including the High Court and the Supreme Court.

A further procedural convenience follows from this. Under section 58(2), the personal attendance of any officer authorised by the Authority to file a complaint is not required during trial where the special public prosecutor is present. This means the authorised officer who investigated the matter and filed the report does not need to appear personally at every hearing once the prosecutor is conducting the case — a difference from a regime where the complaining officer must attend throughout.

What procedure does the trial follow once it starts?

The court follows, in a manner not inconsistent with the Act, the procedure provided under Chapter XXII-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and all prosecutions are to be disposed of and judgments pronounced as expeditiously as possible. Section 58(3) sets this standard. The Act does not itself describe what Chapter XXII-A contains — it only directs the court to follow that chapter’s procedure “in a manner not inconsistent with the Act” and to move the case along expeditiously. Our reading is that adopting a named, specific chapter of the general Code, rather than leaving procedure to the court’s ordinary discretion, signals an intention to keep cases under the Act moving faster than a typical criminal trial — but the exact procedural content of that chapter should be verified against the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 itself rather than assumed from the Act.

Feature	Default rule	Statutory basis
Investigation and evidence law	Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984	Section 54(7)
Which court hears the case	A Special Court, if and where notified by the Federal Government	Section 3(1)(xxviii), Section 54(8)
Who prosecutes	A special public prosecutor appointed by the Federal Government	Section 58(1)
Trial procedure	Chapter XXII-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, applied expeditiously	Section 58(3)
Adjournment limit	No more than fourteen days at a time, for sufficient cause recorded	Section 58(4)

Can a hearing under the Act be adjourned indefinitely?

No. Hearings are not to be adjourned except for sufficient cause to be recorded, and for no more than fourteen days at a time. Section 58(4) sets this limit directly, and adds that the court may impose such costs as it deems fit — presumably on the party responsible for the delay, though the Act does not spell out against whom costs are ordinarily to be imposed. This is a meaningful departure from the pace at which criminal matters can otherwise stretch out in the general court system, and it reflects the same expeditious-disposal instruction given in section 58(3).

In practice, this means a licensee or individual facing trial under the Act should not expect the extended timelines sometimes associated with ordinary criminal litigation. Fourteen days is the outer limit for a single adjournment, and the court must record its reason for granting even that.

How does this trial process connect to the wider enforcement chain?

The trial process described here only begins once an authorised officer’s investigation under sections 56 and 57 has produced the written report that gives a court cognizance of the offence. It sits alongside, but is legally distinct from, the administrative sanctions the Authority may impose directly under section 59 without going through a court at all. A single set of facts can, depending on their nature, trigger criminal prosecution through this trial process, an administrative sanction from the Authority, or both — the Act does not treat the two tracks as mutually exclusive.

For any virtual asset service provider navigating an enforcement matter, understanding which track — or both — is in motion is the first practical question, because the procedural protections, the standard of proof, and the available outcomes differ materially between a Special Court prosecution and an administrative sanction issued by PVARA itself.

Related reading

• PVARA Exchange License: Capital, Rules & Obligations 2026
• PVARA Transfer & Settlement License: Crypto Payments 2026

About this analysis

This analysis was prepared by the CoinConnect research desk from the Virtual Assets Act 2026 as passed by the National Assembly — principally sections 3(1)(xxviii), 54(7), 54(8) and 58 — read as published. Where the Act does not specify a procedural detail, such as who bears adjournment costs, that is stated in the text above.

Regulatory positions change and specific requirements should be verified against the current position published by the relevant authority before you act on them. This is information and analysis, not legal advice, and it does not create an advisory relationship. Take professional advice on your own circumstances.