Section 2 : Definitions
2022 PLD 61 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AMEER HUSSAIN VS GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB
Sections 11-EEE, 2(i) & 33—Punjab Government Rules of Business 2011, Rr. 25, 26, 27 & 28—Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance (XXXI of 1960) SECTION 3—Constitution of Pakistan, Art Section 10 & 199—Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court—Power to arrest and detain suspected person—Preventive detention under Anti-terrorism Act, 1997—Power of Provincial Government to order such preventive detention—Violation/non-conformation to Punjab Government Rules of Business 2011 in procedure issuing notification for such preventive detention—Approval of Provincial Cabinet—Scope—Petitioner impugned order issued by Provincial Government whereby his detention under SECTION 11-EEE Anti-terrorism Act, 1997 was ordered, and sought immediate release—Validity—-Keeping in view definition of “government” in S.2(i) of Anti-terrorism Act, 1997, there was nothing in S.11-EEE of said Act to restrict power to order preventive detention to just Federal Government and same could be legitimately exercised by Provincial Government in its own right without any delegation from Federal Government under S.33 of said Act—In the present case, Deputy Commissioner had issued impugned order purportedly in exercise of powers conferred on him by Home Department of Provincial Government vide a letter that was issued, and it was to be determined whether such conferment was valid—Provincial Government delegated its powers to the concerned Deputy Commissioner vide a notification which per Punjab Government Rules of Business 2011 needed to have Provincial Cabinet approval—Perusal of documents revealed that said Punjab Government Rules of Business 2011 had not been followed in the present case—Said matter was disposed of by Provincial Cabinet non-chalantly and no reasons as mandated by R. 27 Punjab Government Rules of Business 2011 were recorded by Cabinet Ministers in the approval for the summary, while date of said notification was prior to date of the Cabinet Decision communicated wide R. 28(15) of said Rules—Constitutionally mandated rules of business were twined with concept of good governance and were mandatory and Provincial Government had committed gross violations of said Rules in the present case which rendered the entire exercise nugatory—Petitioner was earlier detained under S.3 of Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 and his release was directed by the Provincial Review Board and only upon failure of to keep him detained under said Ordinance, the Provincial Government detained him under S.11-EEE of Anti-terrorism Act, 1997, and legally speaking person released from preventive detention under a Provincial law could not be taken into custody under a Federal law provided that it could be justified—Impugned order was founded on same grounds which were rejected by Provincial Review Board formed under Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960—High Court observed that preventive detention was limited by principles of legality, need and proportionality and in present case, such balance tilted in favour of petitioner—Impugned order was set aside, and petitioner was ordered to be released—Constitutional petition was allowed, accordingly
2021 PLD 255 ISLAMABAD
NAVEED HAYAT MALIK VS State
Sections 2, 6(1) & 6(2)—Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.21—“Public servant”—Scope—Judge is included in Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, as “public servant”—Coercing or intimidating a Judge from performing duties tantamount to an “act of terrorism” under Ss.6(1) & 6(2) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
2020 PCrLJ 96 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
NIAZ ALI RAJPER VS State
SECTION 2(n)—Penal Code (XLV of 1860), SECTION 365-A—Kidnapping for ransom—“Act of terrorism”—Determination—In order to constitute an offence of kidnapping for ransom, the proof of payment of money or even demand thereof was not sine qua non—Said offence also stands constituted if there was an abduction for the purpose of extortion of money or ransom was demanded.
2020 YLRN 148 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ADNAN HUSSAIN VS State
S.365-A—Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.2(n)—Kidnapping for ransom— Act of terrorism—Determination—When demand for ransom was made, legal ingredients under S.365-A, P.P.C. were fulfilled, whether any ransom was paid or not.
2018 PCrLJ 443 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ANWAR ALI VS State
SECTION 2(t) & Third Sched.—Jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court over non-scheduled offences—Scope—Anti-Terrorism Court could not try non-scheduled offence, however, when it was trying scheduled offence non-scheduled offence could also be tried in one and the same trial— Power to try non-scheduled offence would not be available to Anti-Terrorism Court when it was not trying any scheduled offence; conversely an ordinary criminal court could not take cognizance of the offence mentioned in the Sched. to the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
2017 PLD 55 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
AKHTAR MUHAMMAD VS State
SECTION 365-A—Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Sections 2(t), 6, 7(e), 8, 13, 17 & Third Schedule—Kidnapping or abducting for extortion of property, valuable security, etc., act of Terrorism—Appreciation of evidence—Jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court—Scope—Question before High Court was as to whether the offence under SECTION 365-A, P.P.C., if having no nexus with the object of Sections 6, 7 and 8 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, would still be triable by the Anti-Terrorism Court or an ordinary court—Under S.2(t) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, ‘Scheduled Offence’ meant an offence as set out in the Third Schedule of the Act—Abduction or kidnapping for ransom had been inserted in the Third Schedule of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997; therefore, SECTION 365-A, P.P.C. was a Scheduled Offence, which was similar to offence under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, punishment of which had been provided under SECTION 7(e) of the Act—Both offences were identical except that the quantum of punishment of both the offences slightly varied from each other—Punishment provided under SECTION 7(e) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 for the offence of kidnapping for ransom or hostage taking was death or imprisonment for life—Abduction or kidnapping for ransom had been added in the Third Schedule to Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, but punishment thereof had not been provided therein; rather, the punishment had been provided under SECTION 365-A, P.P.C., that was death or imprisonment for life and forfeiture of property—Forfeiture of property, in addition to death or imprisonment for life under SECTION 365-A, P.P.C., was the point of variation in the sentences to the two offences; therefore, the accused was to be charged under SECTION 7(e) of the Act and under SECTION 365-A, P.P.C. separately—In case of proof of the charge of abduction for ransom, if the offences had nexus with the object of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, the accused would be convicted under S.7(e) of the Act, otherwise under SECTION 365-A, P.P.C.; however, at the same time, the accused would not be convicted under both the offences—All offences with regard to use or threat of actions under S.6 of the Act, and offences mentioned under the Third Schedule, would be exclusively triable by Anti-Terrorism Court along with offences with which the accused might be charged under the Code (P.P.C.) at the same trial, as provided under S.17 of the Act—Anti-Terrorism Court could also try other offences with which an accused might under the Code be charged at the same trial if the offence was connected with such other offence—If accused was charged under SECTION 7(a) of the Act and under SECTION 302, P.P.C., then he would be separately charge sheeted under S.7(a) of the Act and under SECTION 302, P.P.C., and on proof of the charges, the accused could be convicted and sentenced under each of the two sections of the laws, as one related to special law while the other related to ordinary law—However, in case of an offence under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and scheduled offence, the accused though would be charge sheeted separately, but he would be convicted under only one offence keeping in view the proof available on the record—Words ‘under this Act’ used in SECTION 13 of Anti-Terrorism Act clarified trial of the cases under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and the words ‘of scheduled offences’ spoke about the trial of scheduled offence as according to SECTION 2(t) of the Act, ‘Scheduled Offence’ meant an offence as set out in the Third Schedule—Offences mentioned in the Third Schedule, even having no nexus with the object or terrorism, would be exclusively triable by Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and not by an ordinary court.
2016 PCrLJ 1108 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ASGHAR ALI MUBARAK VS SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT NO.1, RAWALPINDI
Sections 2, 6 (c), 7 & 12—Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Sections 302 & 324—Religious and sectarian cause—Jurisdiction of Trial Court—Case of qatl-i-amd and attempt to commit qatl-i-amd was registered against accused and case was sent to Anti-Terrorism Court for trial but transferee Court returned the same on the ground that Court of ordinary jurisdiction could not send the case to it for trial—Validity—Provision of SECTION 6(c) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was an independent provision also defining terrorism—After cl. (b) in SECTION 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, word “or” was used clearly suggesting that any action mentioned in cl. (c) would also be an act of terrorism and in order to apply cl. (c), conditions mentioned in SECTION 76(b) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, were not required to be attracted—In order to attract SECTION 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, allegations contained in crime report and statements of witnesses recorded under SECTION 161, Cr.P.C. to be examined—According to accusation contained in FIR lodged by complainant, he along with his brothers, deceased and sisters was coming back to his home after attending “Majlis-e-Aza” when unidentified assailants started firing causing injuries to deceased who died ultimately—Prima facie there was an action within the meaning of SECTION 6(c) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, for the purposes of advancing religious and sectarian cause—High Court directed prosecution branch to submit report under SECTION 173, Cr.P.C. to court of competent jurisdiction— Petition was allowed in circumstances.
2016 PCrLJ 870 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD ARSHAD alias ARSHI SHAH VS State
SECTION 13—Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908), Sections 4, 5 & 7—Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.2(t), Third Schedule [as amended by Punjab Government Notification No.SO(Judl-1) 10 (1-36(1) 2010 dated 5-9-2012], 6, 7 & 12—Recovery of unlicensed arms and explosive substances—Appreciation of evidence—Jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court—Accused was apprehended by the Police, and on his search a loaded Kalashnikov, a Jacket with five loaded magazines, and two hand-grenades were recovered from his possession—Accused was charge-sheeted and convicted under S.13 of Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 and S.4 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 by Anti-Terrorism Court—Accused was neither charge-sheeted under any provision of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, nor he was punished under the said Act—Offence allegedly committed by accused, was made triable by Anti-Terrorism Court vide notification No.SO(Judl-1), 10(1-36(1)2010 dated 5-9-2012, which was issued by Government of Punjab after about 6 months of taking place of occurrence and about four months after framing of charge against accused—Offence, committed by accused did not fall within the jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court on the day when the same was committed, and even when Trial Court framed the charge—Charge, in circumstances, was framed by the Trial Court on wrong premises and proceedings being coram non judice were liable to be vitiated—Accused was also charge-sheeted/convicted and sentenced under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908—Section 7 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 imposed restriction on trial of offences except with consent of the Provincial Government, but trial of accused commenced without prior consent of the Provincial Government; whereas, the consent was mandatory and a condition precedent for prosecution of accused under S.5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908—Case, in circumstances, was badly conducted in the eyes of law.
2016 PCrLJ 635 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE VS State
Sections 2, 6, 7 & 12—Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Sections 302, 337-H(2), 147, 148 & 149—Qatl-i-amd, rash or negligent act and rioting armed with deadly weapons—Act of terrorism—Jurisdiction of Trial Court—Complainant was aggrieved of order passed by Anti-Terrorism Court, who returned investigation report to file the same before Court of ordinary jurisdiction—Validity—Enmity existed between complainant party and accused over matrimonial affairs— FIR showed that offence did not fall within the ambit of Sections 2 & 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997—Order in question was passed on 24-5-2013, while revision was filed on 3-11-2015, after lapse of more than 28 months—Complainant was negligently careless and did not pursue case vigilantly—Order passed by Anti-Terrorism Court could not be assailed by filing revision petition but where some patent illegality or error was pointed out in the order passed by Anti-Terrorism Court, the same could be assailed by invoking Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution, to such illegality— High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Anti-Terrorism Court—Revision was dismissed in circumstances.
2015 MLD 711 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ VS State
Sections 2(n), 7(e) & 23—Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.365 & 365-A—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), SECTION 154—Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199—Constitutional petition—Kidnapping and kidnapping for ransom—Act of terrorism—Determination—FIR, object of—Anti-Terrorism Court after completion of trial came to the conclusion that offence of terrorism was not made out, therefore, challan was returned to prosecution for presenting it before Court of competent jurisdiction—Validity—Purpose of lodging FIR was merely to initiate process of law—During course of investigation, after recording statement of alleged abductee and relevant prosecution witnesses, prosecution built up its case that accused had been claiming ransom from abductee and concerned prosecution witnesses during period of his illegal detention—Alleged offence attracted provisions of S.2(n) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, which was exclusively triable by Anti-Terrorism Court as provided in Third Schedule of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997—Anti-Terrorism Court was misconceived while declining to exercise jurisdiction with reference to absence of any act or attempt to spread harassment or terrorism—High Court directed Anti-Terrorism Court to decide case in accordance with law—Petition was allowed in circumstances.
2014 PLD 44 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
Syed PERVAIZ MUSHARRAF VS State
Sections 2(k) & 28—Inter provincial transfer of case—Principle—Accused was involved in more than one cases and was in custody of Islamabad police—Accused sought transfer of his case form Balochistan province to Islamabad on the plea of personal security—Validity—Territorial jurisdiction under S.2(k) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was in respect of area for which Anti-Terrorism Court was established—Area of Islamabad did not fall within the territorial jurisdiction of High Court of Balochistan nor was an area in respect whereof Chief Justice of Balochistan could exercise his authority—Word “area” could not be construed to mean are beyond territory of High Court—Chief Justice of High Court could not transfer a case beyond jurisdiction of High Court—All attacks on accused took place within the area of Rawalpindi city, therefore, Quetta city was not any more dangerous for accused; it was the responsibility and duty of government to ensure safety and security of an under-trial prisoner who was in custody—Petition was dismissed in circumstances.
2011 PLD 1135 SUPREME-COURT
JUNAID REHMAN VS State
SECTION 365-A—Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.2(n)—Kidnapping for extortion and kidnapping for ransom—Scope—In order to constitute an offence of abduction for ransom actual payment of ransom and proof thereof are sine qua non and the offence stands constituted if there is an abduction and purpose of abduction is extortion of ransom or ransom is demanded for release of abductee.
2011 PLD 1135 SUPREME-COURT
JUNAID REHMAN VS State
SECTION 365-A—Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Sections 2(n) & 7(e)—Kidnapping for extortion or ransom—Reappraisal of evidence—Ransom—Proof—Conviction and sentence of death awarded to accused persons by Trial Court for kidnapping for ransom was altered by High Court into imprisonment for life—Validity—Some telephonic calls had actually been made and received regarding demand of ransom for release of abductee—Bank Manager had proved that at the relevant time a cheque issued by abductee’s father for withdrawal of money equal to ransom had been encashed from the relevant bank and such fact had further established prosecution’s case regarding demand of ransom by accused for release of abductee—Overwhelming evidence produced by prosecution convinced the courts below and the same had also left no doubt that the abduction was done for the purpose of extorting ransom and that ransom was demanded for his release—-Not only the charge of abduction was established against accused persons but it had also been conclusively proved that such abduction was carried out for ransom—No background was available of any enmity or ill-will between accused and abductee and they were not even known to each other previously—Only plausible reason for abduction was to demand ransom for release of abductee—Abductee and his father were the most relevant persons to provide evidence in respect of abduction and demand of ransom and both of them made consistent statements in that respect before Trial Court—Abductee and his father had no reason to falsely implicate accused persons in a case of such nature—Prosecution had successfully proved its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt—Supreme Court declined to interfere in conviction and sentence awarded to accused persons by High Court—Appeal was dismissed.
2011 YLR 1319 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Syeda ZAHIDA RIZVI VS THE STATE through D.S.P.
Preamble, Ss.2(t), 13, 17 & 21-M—Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.182—Giving false information with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to cause injury to another person—Purpose of enactment of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1990—Powers of Anti-Terrorism Court to try a person accused of offence under S.182, P.P. C. —Scope—Anti-Terrorism Act, 1990 which provided for the establishment of Anti-Terrorism Court as evident from its preamble, was enacted for the prevention of terrorism, sectarian violation and speedy trial of heinous offence and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto—Purpose of establishment of Anti-Terrorism Court as envisaged in S.13 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was to provide a court for speedy trial of scheduled offences—“Scheduled offence” as defined by S.2(t) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was an offence as set out in the Third Schedule of the Ordinance—Anti-Terrorism Court, while trying an accused of a scheduled offence could also try such person for an offence which did not find mention in the scheduled of offences by trying it as a matter connected and incidental to a schedule offence as envisaged under S.21-M of the Act—Anti-Terrorism Court had no jurisdiction to try an accused for an offence which did not find mention in the schedule of offences—Offence under S.182, P.P. C., did not find mention in the scheduled offences to Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, his trial before the Anti-Terrorism Court appeared to be without jurisdiction.
2008 MLD 840 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MATI-UR-REHMAN VS ANTI-TERRORISM COURT, FAISALABAD
Ss.395/353/324/186/148/149—Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Sections 7, 6(2)(m)(n), 6(1)(b) & 2(w)—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199—Constitutional petition—Anti-Terrorism Court had dismissed the application of the accused for transfer of the case to the Court of ordinary jurisdiction vide impugned order—Validity—Accused and his co-accused had allegedly launched an assault upon members of the police force and some revenue officials so as to deter them from performing their official duties and had injured seven police officers—Actus reus attributed to the accused and his co-accused had, prima facie, attracted the provisions of S.6(2)(m) & (n) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997—Said assault mounted by 35/40 persons was apparently designed to intimidate and overawe the Government, so as to attract the mens rea contemplated by the provisions of S.6(1)(b) of the said Act—Seven police officers had sustained eighteen injuries at the hands of accused party and three of them had received injuries on their heads exposing their bones, which could be termed as “dangerous to life” so as to attract the definition of “serious” provided by S.2(w) of the said Act—Impugned order, therefore, did not call for any interference—Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.
2007 PCRLJ 1011 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
MERAJ HUSSAIN VS JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM, NORTHERN AREAS, GILGIT
— Sections 2(d), 21-C (5), 21-C (7) (e), 21-C (7) (f), 21-F & 32—Juvenile Justice System. Ordinance (XXII of 2000), S.14—Jurisdiction to try a juvenile offender—Offence of terrorism, can be tried only under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 by the Anti-Terro ?
2005 SCMR 802 SUPREME-COURT
AZIZULLAH VS State
— SECTION 365-A—Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.2(m) & 6(a)—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)—Refusal of transfer of case from Anti-Terrorism Court to ordinary Court—Validity—Material available with the prosecution, prima facie, show ?
2005 PCRLJ 941 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
MUHAMMAD SHARIF VS State
— Sections 337-A, 353, 504 & 34—Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.2, 6, 7 & 25—Appreciation of evidence—Jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court—Appeal, limitation for—Disruption and interference with duties of public servant, no doubt was caused b ??
2005 MLD 1458 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD RAFIQ SHAHID VS SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT, FAISALABAD DIVISION, FAISALABAD
—Ss.2(x), 6, 7 & 23—Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.380, 436, 440, 148 & 149—Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance (XXXI of 1960), S.16—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199—Constitutional petition’-Petition for transfer of case to Court of ordi ??
2005 MLD 1028 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ALEEM ASHRAF VS State
—-Ss.2(e), 7-B & 13(2)—Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (XXII of 2000), S.4—Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Sections 353, 380, 452, 506, 186, 148 & 149—Appreciation of evidence—Jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court—Scope—Constitution of Pakistan (1973) ??
2004 PLD 779 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD DIN VS MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR
—- Sections 2(d), 21-C(5), 21-C(7)(e), 21-C(7)(f), 21-F & 32—Jurisdiction to try a juvenile offender—An offence of terrorism can be tried only by an Anti-Terrorism Court constituted under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and the age of the offender has no re ??
2004 PCRLJ 1967 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Mst. AZRA BIBI VS THE STATE
—- Sections 6(1)(b), 2(d), 21-C(4)(7)(c) & 14(5) [as amended by Anti-Terrorism (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 2002]—Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (XXII of 2000), S.5—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199—Constitutional petition—Seven accused ar ??
2003 PLD 588 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
TAJ MUHAMMAD VS JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT
—- Sections 6 & 2—“Terrorism”—Definition—Not every disruption of or interference with the duties of a public servant or every coercion, intimidation or violence against a public servant which attracts the definition of “terrorism” contained in S.6, Anti ??
2003 MLD 422 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AHMAD BAKHSH VS SHAUKAT ALI KHAN, SPECIAL JUDGE OF SPECIAL COURT UNDER
ANTI-TERRORISM ACT, MULTAN
—-Ss.365-A, 468, 471, 419 & 420—Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.2(d)(n) & 23—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199–Constitutional petition—Jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court —Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was a special law and provisions ??
2002 MLD 1433 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
NAZIM KHAN VS SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT, FAISALABAD
—- Sections 302/324/34—Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Sections 2(e) & 6—Transfer of case from Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court to Sessions Judge—Deceased was a police personnel on home leave and incident had sparked off over a triviality bearing no ne ??
2002 MLD 1949 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Syed RAEES ALAM VS THE STATE
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 —- Sections 2(e)(g) & 2(a)(ii)—Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/147/148/149/34—Application for transfer of case to Special Court—Dismissal of application-=-Petitioner/complainant had contended that deceased being a police constable, only Special Court under Anti Terrorism Act, 1997 was competent to take cognizance of the case–F.I.R. -had shown that deceased though a Police Constable, but was not killed while performing his duties—Merely because a Policeman was killed, was not sufficient ground for trial of case by Anti-Terrorism Court.
2000 SCMR 1597 SUPREME-COURT
MUHAMMAD ARSHAD VS SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORIST COURT NO.2, BAHAWALPUR
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 SECTION 2(e) & Sched., Item (2)—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)—Jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorist Court—Criteria to determine–Leave to appeal was granted and trial of the case was stayed by Supreme Court to examine the contention that Anti-Terrorist Court could assume jurisdiction if conditions laid down under Sched., Item (2) of the Act were fulfilled and as to what was the definition of word “victim” used in item (2) of the Sched. to Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
2000 PCRLJ 1721 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
JAWED AHMED SIDDIQUI VS STATE
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 —- SECTION 2(e) & Sched.—Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/34 & 392/34–Scheduled offence—Murder—-If death is caused during or while committing robbery, or if in committing the offence of robbery, the offender commits murder, the offence would fall in the Schedule to Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. ??
2000 PCRLJ 1583 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
NOOR MUHAMMAD VS STATE
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 —- Sections 2(e) & 25—Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.365-A—Proceedings before Special Judge—Competency—Offence under S.365-A, P.P.C. was not triable by Special Judge on the alleged date of incident as well as on the date when case was sent for trial—Accused contended that since proceedings before a Special Judge were coram non judice, judgment of Special Judge was liable to be set aside—Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 being procedural law, would legally operate retrospectively and amendments in the Act would be deemed to be retrospective—Section 365-A, P.P.C. was a part of Schedule on the date of promulgation of said Act and on the date of passing conviction and sentence upon accused—Proceedings before Special Court were, thus, not “coram non judice”.
1999 YLR 1817 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
KHADIM HUSSAIN VS STATE
—-Ss.364-A & 302—Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), S.10(J)—Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.2(e) & Sched.—Jurisdiction of Special Court—Special Court constituted under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 had no jurisdict ??
1998 PLD 371 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
FAISAL IQBAL VS THE STATE
SECTION 302/324/148/149/109—Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.2(e), 6, 7, 12 & 13—Transfer of case to Special Court—Additional Sessions Judge, after enactment of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, transferred case of accused to Presiding Officer of Special Court—Accused had challenged such transfer contending that in absence of any provision in Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 whereby a case pending before Sessions Court or any other Court could be transferred to the Special Court constituted under that Act, his case could not be transferred to Special Court—Contention of accused was repelled because provisions of Anti Terrorism Act, 1997 had left no doubt that once prima facie a scheduled offence was shown to have been committed, no other Court except the Special Court under Anti-Terrorism, Act, 1997, could try such an offence and that any such case pending .in any other Court would stand automatically transferred to Special Court—By operation of provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 automatic transfer of the cases of scheduled offences would be from any or every Court to the Special Court—For the purpose of determining whether or not an offence was a scheduled offence, such question was to be determined on the basis of F.I.R. and the other material produced by prosecution at the time of presentation of challan—Special Court was to decide on the basis of such material whether cognizance was to be taken or not—Once an offence was declared to be scheduled offence, the ordinary Courts would cease to have jurisdiction for the trial of such an offence which would be exclusively tried by a Special Court—Offences under Anti-Terrorism, Act, 1997 were not the only ones which could be tried by Special Court, but jurisdiction of Special Court would also extend to all other offences mentioned in the Schedule of Anti Terrorism, Act, 1997—Accused having committed scheduled offence, no exception could be taken to the transfer of his case to Special Court.
1998 MLD 1633 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH VS S.H.O., POLICE STATION JALLA ARAIN, DISTRICT LODHRAN
—- SECTION 302/324/148/149—Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), SECTION 2(e), items No Section IV & VI—Cross-case—Power of Special Court to try—Case being of cross-version, petitioners/accused of one side were charged under S.324/447/148/149, P.P.C. though SECTION 302 ??
1998 MLD 1580 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ZAHOOR AHMED VS RUKHSANA KAUSAR
—- SECTION 10(4)—Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.2(c), 20 & 25(7)–Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Sections 367(5) & 423(I)(b)—Appreciation of evidence—Difference in the description of same details of the occurrence given by the victim was not mu ??
1998 PLD 311 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MAHESA VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 SECTION 10(4)—Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.2(c), 23 & 28— Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199—Constitutional petition —Jurisdiciton of Special Judge of Anti-Terrorism Court challenged and transfer of case from Court of Anti-Terrorism to ordinary criminal Court prayed—Offences falling under S.2(c), Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 would be triable by Special Judge Anti Terrorism Court and offences shown in the Sched. of the Act included S.10(4), Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979—Anti-Terrorism Court on forming opinion that no scheduled offence appeared to have been committed could transfer such case to regular Court under S.23, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, while same jurisdiction to transfer case to regular Court vested with Appellate Tribunal—High Court declined to interfere when case clearly was within jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court and Appellate Tribunal—High Court found no substance in Constitutional petition to convert the same under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. and order for transfer of case to ordinary Court–Constitutional petition was not maintainable in circumstances.