Section 9:Punishment for offence under section 8
2023 YLR 564 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD IFTIKHAR VS State
Ss. 8, 9, 11-F(5), 11-H, 11-N, 11-I & 11-J—Prohibition of acts intended or likely to stir up sectarian hatred, membership, support and meetings relating to a proscribed organization, funding arrangements—Fund raising—Appreciation of evidence—Benefit of doubt— Intelligence sources— Scope—Accused was charged for collecting money for the banned organization being its active member—Prosecution claimed that on the basis of intelligence sources, decoy witness was sent to the place where accused was fund raising but admittedly it was neither reduced into writing in the form of any Daily Diary entry nor any document or technical surveillance report was obtained, placed or proved on record—Circumstances established that the prosecution had not been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond shadow of doubt through unimpeachable evidence—Appeal against conviction was allowed in circumstances.
2023 YLR 564 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD IFTIKHAR VS State
Ss. 8, 9, 11-F(5), 11-H, 11-N, 11-I & 11-J—Prohibition of acts intended or likely to stir up sectarian hatred, membership, support and meetings relating to a proscribed organization, funding arrangements—Fund raising—Appreciation of evidence—Benefit of doubt—Accused was charged for collecting money for the banned organization being its active member—Admittedly, no specific evidence, either oral or documentary, had been placed, proved or relied on record which could show that the accused was member of the banned organization or had any proximate or otherwise nexus with that organization—Just because a handful of police official of CTD had given a tag of member of banned organization to the accused, that did not become a conclusive proof of accused being member of banned organization—No evidence to show that the accused did act of the nature—More serious the offence alleged, higher shall be the quality of evidence required to convict the accused—Appreciating the evidence brought by the prosecution, it was found that neither in the depositions of either of the four witnesses nor in the form of any documentary evidence, it had come on record that the accused was indulging in terrorism or was part of any such activity—Admittedly, accused had not any terror or criminal history of any sort and he had absolutely clean antecedents—Case of prosecution was not that the accused was directly or indirectly involved in any terrorist act prior to his apprehension in the case—In such circumstances it was abundant duty of the prosecution to collect legally admissible evidence to show that the accused was member of banned/ proscribed organization—Prosecution had not been able to bring on record any evidence qua commission of offence punishable under Ss. 11-H, 11-I & 11-J of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997—Circumstances established that the prosecution had not been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond shadow of doubt through unimpeachable evidence—Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.
2023 YLR 564 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD IFTIKHAR VS State
Ss. 8, 9, 11-F(5), 11-H, 11-N, 11-I & 11-J—Prohibition of acts intended or likely to stir up sectarian hatred, membership, support and meetings relating to a proscribed organization, funding arrangements—Fund raising—Appreciation of evidence—Benefit of doubt—Decoy witness—Scope—Accused was charged for collecting money for the banned organization being its active member—Decoy witness arranged by complainant could not be said to be a fully independent witness—Witness who paid tainted money to the accused and received receipt and a book became decoy witness—Witness arranged by the police preparatory to trap the accused could not be treated equally by the court with the eye-witness—Even complainant had not deployed shadow witness to hear the conversation between the decoy witness and the accused—Decoy witness had not stated as to how he identified the accused—Complainant and decoy witness had not stated that the description of the accused was given by the secret informer to them or they already knew the accused—Investigating Officer had not collected any material revealing that the accused was distributing any written material nor as to how many books were printed and paid for by the accused—From the prosecution evidence it revealed that book was recovered from the black bag of the accused—Whereas, the book received by decoy witness from the accused and handed over by him to complainant was not produced before the court—As only one book recovered from the bag of the accused was produced before the court—Investigating Officer had not collected any material to establish that the accused distributed book to any other person or persons in any manner whatsoever—Circumstances established that the prosecution had not been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond shadow of doubt through unimpeachable evidence—Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.
2023 YLR 564 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD IFTIKHAR VS State
Ss. 8, 9, 11-F(5), 11-H, 11-N, 11-I & 11-J—Prohibition of acts intended or likely to stir up sectarian hatred, membership, support and meetings relating to a proscribed organization, funding arrangements—Fund raising—Appreciation of evidence—Benefit of doubt—Safe custody of recovered articles—Scope—Accused was charged for collecting money for the banned organization being its active member—Complainant and Investigating Officer deposed during his court statement that he had handed over three sealed parcels to the moharrar—However, Moharrar was not examined and therefore also crucial link evidence had not been completed by the prosecution—No explanation was furnished for that failure to establish safe custody of recovered articles from time of the seizure at 8:20 P.M. till its production in the Trial Court—Mere oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses i.e. complainant and Investigating Officer did not discharge the heavy burden of responsibility, which lay on the prosecution—Circumstances established that the prosecution had not been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond shadow of doubt through unimpeachable evidence—Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.
2020 MLD 1248 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SHAHID HUSSAIN VS State
Ss. 9, 8, 11-F, 11-W &19-A—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103—Prohibition of acts likely to stir up sectarian hatred, membership, support and meetings relating to a proscribed organization—Mode of making searches and arrest—Search to be made in presence of witnesses—Appreciation of evidence—Police witnesses—Scope—Complainant, an Inspector of police, complained that people of different sects came to him and complained about the spite being spread by the accused through facebook—Investigating officer deposed that the accused during investigation had disclosed the password of his facebook account and the account was checked by an Incharge of the IT department who had found the spiteful conversations—Witnesses had remained consistent on all material points—Accused had cross-examined them at length but had failed to impeach their credibility—Police witnesses were as good as any other witness unless it was proved through reliable evidence that they had a reason to falsely implicate the accused—No such material was brought on record in the case—Section 19-A, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, excluded the application of S.103, Cr.P.C.—Investigating Officer had sent the USB (Universal Serial Bus) flash drive and the CPU (Central Processing Unit) to the Forensic Laboratory—Report of Forensic Laboratory had reinforced the prosecution case—Prosecution had proved the charge against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt—High Court, while dismissing appeal, reduced the sentence handed down by the Trial Court as the accused was a first offender.
2020 PCrLJN 156 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ABDUL JABBAR VS State
Ss. 9 & 8—Prohibition of acts intended or likely to stir up sectarian hatred—Appreciation of evidence—Benefit of doubt—Case property—Safe custody— Tampering with case property—Contradictory statements—Scope— Complainant, a Sub-Inspector of police, complained that he received a report that the accused, who ran a mobile shop, was spreading hate and jehadi material among the public—Complainant testified that he seized several articles from the shop of accused vide recovery memo but he was completely silent about what he did with them—Statement of Investigating Officer admitting receipt of case property from complainant was insufficient to provide the missing link and complete the chain of custody, as the complainant had not said so—Investigating Officer deposed that he raided the shop of accused for investigation at 9:45 a.m.; that he returned to the Headquarters at about 12:00 noon/1:00 p.m. and that he had sealed the CPU (Central Processing Unit) at the site—Report of Forensic Laboratory revealed that the operating system of the CPU was last logged on at 5:47:29 p.m., which clearly indicated tampering with the CPU after its seizure—Prosecution had not brought any evidence on record to prove that the accused had a criminal history or was a member of any proscribed organization or was otherwise supporting or promoting the cause of any such body—Heavy onus rested on the prosecution to explain as to what motivated the accused to possess and disseminate the hate and jehadi material—Prosecution evidence was not free from doubt—Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.
2019 SCMR 1646 SUPREME-COURT
Qari MUHAMMAD ISHAQ GHAZI VS State
9—Possession of pamphlets containing content inciting violence against a particular sect—Reappraisal of evidence—Non-association of private witnesses—Police witnesses, credibility of—Police officials, being functionaries of the State, were no less credible witnesses to drive home the charge—Police officials were as good witnesses as any other and their evidence was subject to the same standard of proof and principles of scrutiny as applicable to any other category of witnesses—In the absence of any animus, infirmity or flaw in their depositions, their statements could be relied upon without demur—Officials who testified in the witness-box had seemingly no axe to grind against the accused, and were in comfortable unison with one another—Appeal against conviction was dismissed with the observation that people in the society generally preferred to recuse behind safety instead of coming forward in aid of justice.
2019 SCMR 1646 SUPREME-COURT
Qari MUHAMMAD ISHAQ GHAZI VS State
9—Possession of pamphlets containing content inciting violence against a particular sect—Reappraisal of evidence—Contents of the pamphlets were repugnant and abhorrent, capable of causing most grievous offence—Said pamphlets contravened all limits of decency, an obligation sanctimoniously upheld by every faith—Anti-Terrorism Court had rightly convicted the accused under S. 9 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and sentenced him to 5 years’ rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.100,000—Appeal was dismissed accordingly.
2019 SCMR 1646 SUPREME-COURT
Qari MUHAMMAD ISHAQ GHAZI VS State
9—Possession of pamphlets containing content inciting violence against a particular sect—Whether mere possession of such pamphlets was sufficient to attract provisions of S. 9 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997—Held, that S. 9 of the said Act, unambiguously, suggested that possession of the inflammatory material by itself was an offence even before it was distributed—Legislature intended to nip the evil in the bud given the inflammatory potential of the crime—Anti-Terrorism Court had rightly convicted the accused under S. 9 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 for mere possession of the inflammatory pamphlets—Appeal was dismissed accordingly.
2019 PCrLJ 920 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ASIM NAWAZ alias KALEEM NAWAZ VS State
Ss. 9 & 11-W(2)—Sectarian hate speech and propagating banned organizations—Appreciation of evidence—Sentences, reduction in—Special circumstances—Effect—Accused was convicted by Trial Court on sectarian hate speech, propagating banned organizations and was variously sentenced to imprisonment and fine—Validity—Detail of audio files, graphic files and multimedia files was provided in accompanying DVD-I, DVD-II and DVD-III by Punjab Forensic Science Laboratory—Investigating officer also received Verisys verification regarding ownership of SIM Card recovered from mobile phone, which was in name of accused—Prosecution witnesses gave each and every detail of prosecution case and were cross-examined at length—Nothing fruitful cropped up during cross-examination—Tenor of cross-examination also revealed that facts in issue were not challenged seriously—Trial Court rightly appreciated evidence and had rightly found accused guilty of charge levelled against him—Prosecution had successfully proved its case beyond shadow of doubt by producing relevant and admissible evidence—High Court maintained conviction of accused but taking into account mitigating circumstances reduced sentence of imprisonment to that of already undergone but quantum of fine was maintained—Appeal was dismissed accordingly.
2019 PCrLJ 920 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ASIM NAWAZ alias KALEEM NAWAZ VS State
Ss. 9 & 11-W(2)—Sentence—Words ‘may extend to’ in Ss. 9 & 11, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997—Connotation—By using words ‘may extend to’ in such provisions of law provides unspecific sentences and is indicative that courts have to appreciate circumstances indicative of reformation of a convict before deciding about quantum of sentence.
2018 YLR 1464 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
WASIM ABBAS VS State
Ss. 9 & 11-W—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199—Suspension of execution of sentence—Scope—Release of accused on bail pending appeal—Constitutional jurisdiction—Scope—Petitioner/convict contended that appeal preferred by him having not been decided within the period statutorily provided under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, thus, case for his release on bail through suspension of execution of sentence stood made out—Prosecution contended that petitioner was not entitled for release as he was convicted on the charge of inciting division and disharmony in already volatile society—High Court, though, was vested with ample authority to release convict in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction, however, power of such amplitude was to be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in cases of extreme hardship—Hardship of prisoner could be quantified to deny him extenuation, however, his release on bail on account of non-disposal of appeal within the prescribed period would defeat the very purpose of the special law—Constitutional jurisdiction could not be invoked to defeat legislative intent—High Court directed the office to post the main case with a convenient dispatch—Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.
2018 PCrLJN 187 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court
Mir NISAR HASSNAIN RAMAL VS State
497—Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 123-A, 124-A & 153—Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 9(1), 19(7), 11-E(4), 11-EE, Sched. IV—Condemnation of the State and advocacy of abolition of its sovereignty, sedition, wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot, terrorism—Bail, grant of—Member of proscribed organization—Petitioner allegedly sent objectionable messages against the creation and sovereignty of State (Gilgit Baltistan) through WhatsApp to different sections of society—Record revealed that challan of the present case had been submitted after almost three months of registration of FIR whereas under S. 9(1) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 the investigation was to complete within thirty working days—Trial Court had also failed to decide the case despite elapse of six months whereas under S. 19(7) Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, Trial Court was bound to proceed with the trial from day to day basis and would decide the case within seven days—Section 11-EE(IV), Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was meant for the proscribed organization or its members but present petitioner was, admittedly not member of any proscribed organization—Prosecution, prima facie, had placed name of the petitioner in Sched. IV of S. 11-EE of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 with mala fide intention—Perusal of contents of messages revealed that the petitioner had not forwarded any detestable message and neither he had provoked the feelings of the locality nor had condemned the creation of the state and its sovereignty, hence the petitioner was entitled for the concession of bail—Bail was granted to the petitioner, in circumstances.
2017 SCMR 560 SUPREME-COURT
MUHAMMAD NOMAN VS State
497(2)—Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 7 & 9—Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), Ss. 13-2(A) & 20—Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908), S. 4—Acts of terrorism, possession of illegal weapons, explosives and time-bombs—Bail, grant of—Further inquiry—Counter-Terrorism Department alleged that accused and co-accused persons were arrested while travelling in a car, that contained arms, ammunition, bombs, explosives and militant literature—Family of accused on the other hand alleged that accused was picked up from his house by some unknown persons and subsequently police showed his arrest; that the incident of accused’s abduction was immediately reported to the police, and that a habeas corpus petition was also filed to find the whereabouts of the accused after his abduction—Written complaint submitted by family of accused about his abduction from his house, was neither inquired into nor investigated in any manner whatsoever, rather the same was deliberately suppressed by the police—Investigating officer had not opined that the accused was found connected with any militant group or had been found financer or provided any other facility to militants—Investigation/inquiry carried out was neither satisfactory nor free from malice and the accused’s implication in present case was not free from reasonable doubt, thus, he could not be left at the mercy of the police—Investigation, in the present case, was one-sided and the other aspects of vital importance were not touched much less investigated into without any explanation offered by the investigating officer—Case of the accused was one of further inquiry into his guilt—Accused was granted bail accordingly.
2017 YLR 2394 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD IMRAN VS State
Ss. 7(g) & 9—Speech creating sectarian hatred— Appreciation of evidence—Slogans against Armed Forces and a particular sect—Funeral procession—Identification and nomination of accused persons—Complainant in his statement contended that he nominated the accused persons by knowing their names through security officials and C.T.D. officials who were present at the spot—Complainant captured the event by camera but did not disclose such recording for helping in identifying the accused—Number of participants in the procession were not mentioned in the complaint by the complainant but he mentioned them between 500-1000 during his testimony—Source persons were also not cited as the witnesses—No person from a particular sect appeared to join the investigation—Testimony of complainant was nothing but an unresolved riddle which did not establish the identification of accused—To select a few from hundreds of slogan raisers, if at all it was so, for naming them as accused in such a case required a high degree of sensibility, which was not shown—Extra pace of the trial to overcome much needed sensibility as to the said fact, could result in a fallacious verdict of guilt against the accused—Prosecution could not establish identity of the accused beyond mere estimations—Conviction and sentence of accused was set aside.
2017 YLR 2394 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD IMRAN VS State
Ss. 7(g) & 9—Speech creating sectarian hatred—Appreciation of evidence—Backdrop of hanging of a person was not known which would reflect on the veracity of allegations, levelled by the prosecution against the accused—Some oral or documentary evidence had been produced by the prosecution in this regard—Such hidden aspect made the case hazier—Accused were acquitted.
2016 SCMR 787 SUPREME-COURT
JAVED IQBAL VS State
Ss. 295-A, 295-B, 302(b), 324, 337-L(2), 148, 149, 186 & 353—Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 7(a) & 9—Cross-firing between police and participants of a procession—Reappraisal of evidence—Accused persons were part of a procession led by the co-accused who claimed to be the “Imam Mehdi”—Cross-firing between the procession and police resulted in death of one person and caused injuries to several others—Record showed that police party also fired upon the procession—No police official received any bullet injury, whereas three accused persons suffered bullet injuries—All crime empties were attributed to accused persons and no crime empty from bullets fired by police was shown during investigation—Parcels of crime empties and weapons were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory after an unexplained delay of 11 days—Eye-witnesses did not attribute direct role of firing at deceased to any particular accused—Prosecution evidence lacked examination of any independent witness from the locality and many other material witnesses; contained vague/general allegations with material contradictions about the whole incident, and was not sufficient either to fix the responsibility of murder of deceased or injuries to some persons or to show any of the ingredients to justify their conviction under Ss. 7(a) & 9 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997—Possibility that death of deceased and injuries to some persons might have been the result of police firing could not be ruled out—Accused persons had served their substantive sentences for over 9-years and 9-months—Conviction of accused persons under Ss.302(b), 324, 337L(2), P.P.C. and Ss. 7(a) & 9 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 were set aside, while their conviction and sentences awarded by Trial Court under Ss. 295-A, 295-B, 148, 149, 186 & 353, P.P.C. were maintained.
2016 SCMR 787 SUPREME-COURT
JAVED IQBAL VS State
Ss. 295-A, 295-B, 295-C, 302(b), 324, 337-L(2), 148, 149, 186 & 353—Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 7(a) & 9—Cross-firing between police and participants of a procession—Reappraisal of evidence—Accused who claimed to be the “Imam Mehdi”, led a procession of co-accused persons, who exchanged fire with the police resulting in death of one person and injuries to several others—Accused was convicted and sentenced to death under Ss. 295-A, 295-B, 295-C, 302(b), 324, 337-L(2), 148, 149, 186 & 353 & Ss. 7(a) & 9 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997—High Court set-aside conviction of accused to the extent of S. 295-C, P.P.C and did not confirm death sentence awarded by Trial Court—Validity—Police had also fired upon the procession—Possibility that death of deceased and injuries to some persons might have been the result of police firing could not be ruled out—Conviction of accused under Ss. 302(b) & 324, P.P.C. was set aside, while sentences under other provisions of law awarded to him by the Trial Court, as modified by the High Court, were upheld in circumstances.
2016 YLR 1340 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court
Mulana MAQBOOL MIR VS State
497—Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.9, 11-F & 11-W—Acts intended or likely to stir up sectarian hatred, membership, support and meetings relating to a proscribed organization, printing, publishing, or disseminating any material to incite hatred, or giving projection to any person convicted for a terrorist act—Bail, grant of—Offences under S.11-F of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, were bailable— Offences of Ss.11-W & 9 of said Act did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.—Grant of bail in case of offences, that did not fall within prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C., was a rule, while refusal thereof was an exception—Circumstances of the present case could not be given treatment of an exception—Accused, was admitted to bail, in circumstances.
2015 PCrLJ 768 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court
State VS SUFI ALI
153-A—Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.8 & 9—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.417(2) & 196—Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art.60—Promoting enmity between different groups, acts intended or likely to stir up sectarian hatred and offences against the State—Procedure—Appeal against acquittal—Maintainability—Section 196, Cr.P.C., had elaborated that it was the domain of the Central Government or the Provincial Government or an officer empowered on their behalf to move a complaint for invocation of S.153-A, P.P.C.—Procedure specified in S.196, Cr.P.C., had to be strictly complied with and any defect in procedure was not curable—Such mandatorily expressed provision could not and should not be overlooked—Supreme Appellate Court observed that Legal Branch in Gilgit-Baltistan, should be well versed with such matters and all District Police Officers should be acquainted with the matters for which procedure had been laid down and steps to be taken—Findings of the Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan, in the present case, whereby accused were acquitted from the charges, prosecution and Law Department should have gone through the clear cut orders of the court and realized their mistake, and having legal approach not to prefer an appeal in the Supreme Appellate Court, as the said order had no infirmities—Legal department, in the present case, should have consulted the Advocate General Gilgit-Baltistan, who was representing them; if they did not agree to his professional advice, then Law Department should depute one of its experts, and well versed officers to deal with the matter with their professional advice by performing such non-maintainable appeal against acquittal, revisions and reviews—Supreme Appellate Court further observed that findings of the Chief Court, in the present case, were not based on the merits and quality of evidence adduced, but on the mode adopted for prosecution of the individuals.
2014 GBLR 137 SUPREME-APPELLATE-COURT
State VS SUFI ALI
153-A—Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.8, 9 & 25—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.196 & 417(2)—Promoting enmity between different groups, act of terrorism—Appeal against acquittal—Case was registered on information with the delay of almost 20 days—Procedure—Police Officer was duty bound to send report to the Magistrate concerned forthwith—Police Officer did not send any such report to the Magistrate, which had caused a serious doubt about the secret information and proceedings by the Police Officer—Case could not be registered with promptitude, which had made the case of prosecution doubtful—Prosecution witnesses had stated that they were never associated with the investigation of the case nor their statements under S.161, Cr.P.C., were ever recorded by the Investigating Officer—Inference could be drawn that witnesses had not seen accused persons while committing the offence—Whole exercise undertaken by the Investigator, while collecting the incriminating material from accused persons, was rendered futile—Such kind of evidence could not be relied upon for conviction and sentence, particularly, when appeal was against acquittal—Cognizance in the offence under S.153-A, P.P.C., could not be taken to any court in view of S.196, Cr.P.C.—Registration of FIR in such a manner was void ab initio—Offence under S.153-A, P.P.C., could not be termed as an offence against individual, rather it was an offence against the State—Court would take the cognizance of offence punishable under S.153-A, P.P.C., upon a complaint made by Federal Government or Provincial Government or some officer so empowered in that behalf by any of the two Governments—No sanction was accorded, entitling the Judge Anti-Terrorism Court to take the cognizance of the offence under S.153-A, P.P.C.—Case in an offence under S.153-A, P.P.C., could not be proceeded on the report prepared under S.173, Cr.P.C.—Non-adherence and observance of the provisions of S.196, Cr.P.C., rendered the subsequent proceedings a nullity—Where a condition for the exercise of jurisdiction, was not fulfilled, the whole proceedings, subsequent thereto would become coram non judice, and would have no legal effect, and would render the whole exercise, not only illegal, but also without jurisdiction—Accused was presumed to be innocent, unless found guilty—Supreme Appellate Court, could not substitute its own finding, unless it was found that the findings of the Chief Court, were based on mis-reading of the evidence leading to miscarriage of justice—Judgment of the Chief Court, whereby, accused persons were acquitted, was unexceptional, and did not require any interference, in circumstances.
2014 PCrLJ 1084 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Malik MUHAMMAD ISHAQ VS State
497—Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 295-A—West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance (XXXI of 1960), S. 16—Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.9—Deliberate and malicious act intended to outrage religious feelings, stirring up sectarian hatred and disrupting public peace—Bail, grant of—Administration of justice—Accused had been detained under various preventive detention orders since 22-5-2013, and he, despite having been granted bail in various cases registered under S.16 of West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960, and Ss. 188 & 295-A, P.P.C. by different Courts of law, had not been released from prison—Validity—Accused did not condemn or abuse or verbally attack the sect, rather he spoke in praise of the pious companions (may the Almighty be pleased with them) of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) by referring to various verses from the glorious Qur’an with the pledge that their dignity, nobility and eminence was to be defended, the way it ought to be—Any person could follow any school of thought as regarded by the faith and could keep allegiance with any sect but it had to be remembered that survival as nation was only in sactarian harmony, inter-faith coherence and on the principle of ‘live and let live’—No one could be left to rot in jail for an indefinite period of time to satisfy a grudge, whimsical or otherwise, of anyone—Justice could not be allowed to be brutalized to curtail life and liberty of any individual, who was hard nut to crack by police—Period of incarceration of accused, if extended, would serve no useful purpose—Bail was allowed in circumstances.
2014 YLR 2134 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
RAZA MUHAMMAD SHAH VS State
Ss. 497(2) & 196—Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 295-A, 296, 298 & 341—Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 9—West Pakistan Regulation and Control of Loudspeakers and Sound Amplifiers Ordinance (II of 1965), Preamble—Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs, disturbing religious assembly, uttering words etc. with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings, wrongful restraint, acts intended or likely to stir up sectarian hatred, restriction on the use of load speaker etc.—Bail, grant of—Sanction under S. 196, Cr.P.C. not obtained for prosecution under S. 295-A, P.P.C.—Non-association of private witnesses—Accused was alleged to have erected a barrier on the way leading to a place of congregation and also installed a loud speaker upon which he was playing cassettes fomenting hatred against other sects—Except for S.295-A, P.P.C. punishment provided for the remaining offences was less than 7 years, thus they did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C.—Prima facie requirement of S. 196, Cr.P.C. was not fulfilled by the police/complainant before registering F.I.R. under S. 295-A, P.P.C.—State counsel admitted that no sanction as envisaged under S. 196, Cr.P.C was obtained for the trial of present case under S. 295-A, P.P.C.—Despite having advance information about the incident, no effort was made on part of the complainant/ police to procure attendance of private persons to witness the incident—Accused was granted bail in circumstances.
2014 PCrLJ 1256 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court
Syed NAWAZ HUSSAIN VS State
153-A—Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 8 & 9—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.196—Promoting enmity between different groups, acts intended or likely to stir up sectarian hatred—Prosecution for offences against the State—In view of the sensitivity of the offence under S.153-A, P.P.C. and S.8/9 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, same had been held in law to be an offence against the State, instead of an offence against an individual though the individuals also affect from commission of such nature of offences—Right of prosecution had been given to the State instead of an individual in the general interest of the people—S.H.O., or the informant in the case had lodged the First Information Report, who were not Central/Provincial Government, nor they were the persons duly authorized for the purpose as envisaged under S.196, Cr.P.C.—Proceedings carried out by the court on that report was coram non judice, ab initio void and nullity in the eyes of law—Accused were acquitted from the charges, in circumstances.
2013 YLR 1966 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ATTA-UR-REHMAN alias IBRAHIM alias UMAR alias TAHIR VS State
Ss. 302(b), 337-F(iii), (v), (vi) & 34—Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.9(a)(c)(d)(h)—Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908), S.3—Qatl-e-amd, causing Mutalahimah, Hashimah, Munaqqilah, common intention, acts of terrorism, and causing explosion—Appreciation of evidence—Delay of 4 hours in lodging F.I.R. in heinous offence, was of no consequence, specially when delay was properly explained—Names of accused persons having not been mentioned in the F.I.R., no mala fide could be attributed to complainant—Eye-witnesses, who were injured in incident, had fully supported the case of prosecution—Accused person along with companions made indiscriminate firing upon Rangers Force, from automatic weapons and used hand grenade, which resulted murder of two persons—Testimony of injured witnesses, in such act of terrorism, was to be kept on a high pedestal, as injured witnesses would not in any case would substitute a wrong person for actual assailant—Eye-witnesses of the incident, had no previous enmity with accused persons—Incident was day time occurrence and all the eye-witnesses had clearly seen accused persons at the relevant time—Prosecution witnesses picked up both accused persons in identification parade, and identified them in Trial Court—Delay in holding of identification parade would not be fatal for the prosecution, when eye-witnesses of the incident had clearly identified that accused persons present before the court were same—Evidence of Rangers personnel could not be disbelieved, simply because they were members of Armed Forces—Eye-witnesses were natural and independent, and ocular evidence was fully corroborated by medical evidence—Prosecution had proved the motive—Trial Court had properly assessed the evidence and gave sound reasons—No reason was on record to disagree with the appreciation of evidence by Anti-Terrorism Court—Manner and method of incident was heinous, shaking, involving terrorist act, creating panic to the society as a whole, and penalty of death had rightly been awarded to accused persons by the Trial Court—No mitigating circumstances existed in the case to convert the death penalty to the imprisonment for life, Judgment of Anti-Terrorism Court, was maintained, in circumstances.
2009 PCrLJ 955 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
SIKANDAR KHAN VS State
Ss. 324/353/148/149—Anti-‘Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.7(b), 9(b) & 25—Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.22—West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13—Appreciation of evidence—Recovery of arms and ammunitions were made from the possession of accused persons which was duly witnessed by marginal witness of the recovery, who had fully supported the case of the prosecution—All the prosecution witnesses had faced the test of lengthy cross-examination by the defence, but nothing favourable to accused persons had come out from their mouths—Defence had failed to shatter the case of the prosecution—Prosecution witnesses were all unanimous on all material points—Medical Officer who had examined accused who resisted his arrest and during the scuffle between the Police party and accused had sustained injuries, his medico legal report also supported the case of the prosecution—Both accused persons and absconding co-accused had attempted to commit robbery and to loot the passengers sitting inside the Bus and they had created terror and panic in the whole surroundings area—Empties had been recovered during the spot inspection, which were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis and its report was in positive—Accused had failed to produce any documentary proof with regard to the recovered arms and ammunitions—Accused were reasonably linked with the commission of the offence charged with—Prosecution had been able to prove its case against accused persons beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt—Trial Court, in circumstances, had rightly appraised the evidence brought on record—Impugned judgment of the Trial Court based on correct legal footings and correct appraisal of evidence, could not be set at naught by High Court—Counsel for accused had failed to point out any illegality, irregularity, misreading or non-reading of evidence so as to create a dent in the case of the prosecution, or legal infirmity, perversity in the impugned judgment of conviction which was accordingly maintained.
2008 YLR 1503 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Qari KAFAIT ULLAH VS State
9—Appreciation of evidence—Benefit of doubt—Allegation of publishing and distributing etc. pamphlets creating sectarian hatred—F.I.R. was lodged after a delay of 5/6 days—Prosecution had not produced any publisher or owner of the press to prove that the pamphlet in question was published in his press—No evidence had come on record to show any sectarian hatred having taken place in the village because of such pamphlet—Investigating Officer had stated that no criminal breach of peace had taken place—Despite the allegation that the accused had been pasting such pamphlets on the walls of the village, Investigating Officer did not take any poster into possession—No body had come forward to support the prosecution version—Complainant had neither mentioned in the F.I.R. that he had received the pamphlet from the accused nor he stated so in the supplementary statement—Accused had denied the allegation made in the prosecution evidence and had taken oath even in the Court that he did not get the pamphlets printed, nor distributed the same nor pasted them on the walls of the village—Accused was acquitted on benefit of doubt in circumstances.
2008 PCrLJ 805 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
FAYYAZ AHMED VS State
Ss. 7, 9 & 10—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199—Constitutional petition—Authority of Public Prosecutor Anti-Terrorism Court to decide the question of jurisdiction or applicability of the relevant section of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997—Scope—Offence under S.7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was invoked by the police in the F.I.R. on the basis of allegation of causing panic in the public—Petitioner/one of the accused persons challenged said invocation in constitutional petition before High Court—During pendency of said petition, report under S.173 Cr.P.C. was forwarded to the Public Prosecutor Anti-Terrorism Court who, after holding that facts of the case did not attract the provisions of S.7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, directed Station House Officer to submit the challan to the District Prosecutor after deleting the’ offence under S.7 of the Act—Said order was challenged by the complainant in constitutional petition—Validity—Section 9 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 did not authorize the Public Prosecutor to delete the offence under S.7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997—Public Prosecutor Anti-Terrorism Court had no authority to assume and abdicate the function, authority and jurisdiction of the Trial Court to decide the question of jurisdiction or applicability of the relevant section—Public Prosecutor,, Anti-Terrorism Court while passing the impugned direction, had travelled beyond his jurisdiction and authority and had committed a grave illegality—Impugned direction being without jurisdiction and legal authority, was quashed and set aside—Impugned order/direction passed by the Public Prosecutor, was directed to be treated by the Judge Anti-Terrorism Court as a report under subsection (7) of S.9 of Anti Terrorism Act, 1997.
2006 YLR 2048 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Raja WAQAR AZIM VS State
—-S. 497—Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.9/11—Bail, grant of—Neither the persons to whom the accused had allegedly imparted offensive directions were mentioned in the record, nor the contents of the said directions imparted to the unknown pe
2003 SCMR 663 SUPREME-COURT
GHULAM SHABBIR VS THE STATE
—-Ss.302/149, 337-A(i)/149 & 148—Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.9—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.345—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)—Compromise—Legal heirs and Wali of the deceased and the injured victims had compou
2002 YLR 420 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
GHULAM SHABBIR VS THE STATE
—-Ss. 302/324/337-A (ii) /149—Anti Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6, 7, 9 & 38—Appreciation of evidence—Unlawful assembly—Common intention—Motive behind the occurrence was that the deceased was President of a sectarian group and accused pa
2002 PCRLJ 1902 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
BAHAWAL BAKHSH VS THE STATE
—-Ss. 302/34 & 114/34—Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.9–Appreciation of evidence—No conflict existed between ocular account and medical evidence—Names of accused, weapon of offence carried by accused, role played by accused and names of eye
2001 PCRLJ 1823 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
HABIB SAIN VS THE STATE
—-S. 497—Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.295-A & 295-B—Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.8/9—Ball—Witnesses in their statements made under S.161, Cr.P.C. had made only allegations of general nature against the accused and did not say anything
2001 PCRLJ 932 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD ARSHAD LATIF VS SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM
—-Ss. 302/201/148/149/197—Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7 & 9—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199—Constitutional petition–Case sent to Special Court—Validity—Case was an outcome of an alleged encounter between the deceased pe ?