Transfer of case from Anti-Terrorism Court to ordinary Court could be prayed for u/S. 561-A, Cr.P.C. and not under Article 199 of the Constitution. High Court has inherent powers to interfere whenever it finds any case of hardship or abuse of process of Court or law and justice would demand interference by High Court. (DB) PLD 1998 Kar. 311 Mahesar etc. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
Transfer of case to Special Court under Anti-Terrorist Act 1997 by Addl. Sessions Judge, once prima facie Scheduled Offence under Anti-Terrorism Act appears to have been committed on the basis of FIR the case automatically stands transferred to Special Court. PLJ 1998 Lah. 371 Faisal Iqbal.
Bail u/S. 30(3), Anti-Terrorist Act, 1997 can only be granted by the Special Court if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the offence has not been committed by the petitioner. (DB) PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Lah.) 651 Imran Murtaz.
Sec. 5(2)(1) of Anti-Terrorist Act, 1997 is invalid to the extent of opening fire when in the opinion of the Civil Armed Forces or Armed Forces a person against whom in his opinion in all probability is likely to commit a terrorist act or any scheduled offence without being fired upon. PLD 1998 SC 1445 Mehram Ali v. Federation of Pakistan 
In trial before Special Court under Anti-Terrorist Act, 1997, Cr.P.C. and Qanun-e-Shahadat are applicable. PLD 1998 SC 1445 Mehram Ali.
Under Section 25(1)(3)(4) Anti-Terrorists Act, appeal from acquittal is not maintainable by the complaint, that is private part. (DB) PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Kar.) 1115 Haji Muhammad Ibrahim and others
Sections 24, 25, 27, 28, 30 and 37 of Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) are not valid in the present form as they militate against the concept of independence of judiciary and Articles 175 and 203 of the Constitution. The Appellate power vests in High Court and not in Appellate Tribunal. PLJ 1998 SC 1415 Mehram Ali etc. v. Federation of Pakistan 
Section 10 of Anti-Terrorism Act XXVII of 1997 is invalid as power given to enter a house or search a house is against the dignity of man and is in conflict with Article 14 of the Constitution. Before entering upon a premises which is suspected to have material in contravention of Sec. 8 of the Act, the concerned officer shall record his reasons for such belief and shall serve a copy of such reasons upon the person before entering his house. PLD 1998 SC 1445 Mehram Ali v. Federation of Pakistan 
Bail allowed for offence u/S. 9 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and u/S. 3/4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order for recovery of charas weighing 1750 grams from accused travelling in a flying coach, for the reason that in spite of public witnesses being available at the spot they were ignored and not associated in recovery proceedings. PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Pesh.) 973 Muhammad Afzal.
Quantity of heroin recovered did not entail sentence falling in prohibition clause of Sec. 497, Cr.P.C. of sub-section (1) bail was refused to a female with a suckling baby for offence under Art. 3/4 of Prohibition Enforcement of Hadood Order IV of 1979 and Section 9, 15 and 51-A of Control of Narcotic Sustenances Act, XXV of 1997. (DB) PLD 1998 Lah. 146 Mst. Nasira Bibi.
One Kg. heroin recovered, bail allowed on statutory ground of delay in trial.ÿWhen there is no material on record to show that the petitioner is a previous convict or desperate or hardened criminal bail shouldbe allowed. 1997 SCMR 361 Jaggat Ram v. State referred. PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Kar.) 666 Mubarak Ali etc.
50 grams of heroin recovered from women who were in custody for 7 months. Case not falling in prohibition clause of Sec. 497(1), Cr.P.C. Bail allowed. (DB) PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Lah.) 56 Sakina Bibi etc.
25 grams of heroin recovered, bail allowed as the quantity did not exceed 1000 grams for which the sentence is not to exceed 2 years imprisonment. Bail allowed u/S. 9 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act. Also held that the provisions of Narcotic Substances Ordinance, 1997 have overriding effect on Prohibition (Enforcement of Hudood) Order. 1998 P.Cr.L.J 1227 Dost Muhammad.
Provisions of S. 21(2), Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 are directory and not mandatory. Therefore proceedings initiated by a police officer below the rank of sub-inspector police do not vitiate the proceedings. PLJ 1998 Cr.C. (Lah) 67 Muhammad Ramzan.
Accused can be admitted to bail if charged with Scheduled Offence under Control of Narcotic Substances Act XXV of 1997 under the provision of Sections 496, 497, 498, Cr.P.C. not withstanding the bar in S. 51 of the Act. Applicability of Ss. 496, 497, 498, Cr.P.C., is not totally barred in respect of cases under the Act but only prohibition is on grant of bail to a person accused of an offence punishable with death while in other cases bal may be allowed in suitable cases. However under the Act there is no prohibition on suspension of sentence during pendency of Appeal. (SC) NLR 1999 Cr.C. 384 Gulzaman.
A.S.I. Police is not competent to seize in public liquor, arrest and search the accused. Bail allowed for offences u/Ss.. 3/4 of Prohibition Ordinance and u/S. 6/9 of the Control of Narcotic Sustenances act, 1997. PLJ 1999 Cr.C. (Lah.) 470 Rafaqat Ali.
Court presided over by serving Judge of High Court would not make the Court High Court when deciding the case not as a Judge of High Court by doing the case as a Special Court under Special Law. Appeal to supreme Court dismissed as not maintainable. 1999 SCMR 654 Asghar.
Appeal against order of special Court is not maintainable before Supreme Court. Special Appellate Court created u/S. 46 of Act XII of 1977 hears appeals only against order of Special Judge Customs appointed u/S. 44 of the said Act. PLJ 1999 SC 801 Asghar Ali