Case laws on ATC

2016 SCMR  291     
S. 345(7)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b) & 338-E---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 7(a) & 21-L---Qatl-i-amd, act of terrorism---Waiver or compounding of offence---Scope---Conviction and death sentence recorded under S. 302(b), P.P.C. and S. 7(a) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Offence under S. 7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was an independent one, which was non-compoundable , thus the sentence awarded under said provision of law was independent to other sentences under S. 302(b), P.P.C. etc., which may be compoundable in nature---In view of the bar contained in S. 345(7), Cr.P.C., conviction of an accused under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 would remain intact despite compromise in other sentences in compoundable offence.

2016  SCMR  1190     
Ss. 345, 367(2) & (3)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b), 34 & 404---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7(a)---Accused charged with both compoundable and non-compoundable offences---Legal error committed by Trial Court in not recording separate conviction and sentence for the non-compoundable offence---High Court also failing to notice such error---Compromise between parties for the compoundable offence---Effect---Conviction and sentence for the non-compoundable offence had to be recorded separately and could not be implied---Matter of conviction and sentence for the non-compoundable offence had become a past and closed transaction---Compromise between the parties for the compoundable offence should not have been rejected in such circumstances.
 
 PCrLJ  2015 Kar 628     
  S. 345---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7(a)---Qatl-i-amd, common intention, act of terrorism--- Compromise application--- Maintainability--- Compromise applications were filed by complainant/legal heirs of deceased during pendency of appeals---Offence under S.302, P.P.C. was compoundable by legal heirs of the victim, whereas offence under S.7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, had not been shown in the first and second column of table of S.345, Cr.P.C.---Such offence was not compoundable under the provisions of S. 345, Cr.P.C., as provisions of said section, could not be stretched too far by including therein a non-compoundable offence under the garb of humanitarian grounds; or on the ground that accused persons belonged to Rangers Force---Manner, in which brutal murder of the deceased was committed, caused sensation in society---Such offence being against society, it could not be permitted to be compounded by an individual/legal heir of the deceased on any score---Application filed for compounding of offence being without legal force, was dismissed, in circumstances.

 PLD 2014 SC  809     
Ss. 302(b) & 34--- Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6(1)(b) & 7(a)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 345---Qatl-e-amd, common intention, act of terrorism---Compromise---Reappraisal of evidence---Murder of unarmed person by members of law enforcement agency---Grievous and heinous crime---Sense of fear or insecurity in the public---Accused and co-accused persons were members of a law enforcement agency, and they had a quarrel with the deceased at a park---Deceased was surrounded by accused and co-accused, whereafter one of the co-accused shouted "maromaro", as a result of which the accused fired at the deceased---Deceased pleaded to be taken to hospital, but accused and co-accused did not do the same, despite presence of an official vehicle at the spot---Deceased consequently bled to death---Accused deliberately and wilfully shot the deceased at the instigation of the co-accused persons and they let him bleed to death without offering him any assistance---Such sequence of events abundantly displayed the common intention and object of the accused and co-accused persons---Gruesome murder of deceased at the hands of members of law enforcement agency certainly created a sense of terror, insecurity and panic in the minds and hearts of those who witnessed the scene and the entire public which saw the video of the incident---Accused had compromised with legal heirs of deceased but offence committed by him and co-accused persons under S.7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was not compoundable ---Supreme Court however observed that following the ratio in the case of Muhammad Nawaz v. The State (PLD 2014 SC 383), wherein sentence of death imposed upon convict under S.7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was reduced to imprisonment for life in the presence of a compromise, the death sentence awarded to present accused should also be reduced to imprisonment for life---Sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to co-accused persons was maintained---Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

PLD 2014 SC  383     
  S. 345--- Penal Code (XLV of 1860),Ss. 302(b), 324, 353, 148, 149 & 337-F(iii)---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6(m) & (n), 7(a), (c) & (h)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.188---Review of Supreme Court judgment---Murder of police official while on duty---………………..---Regarding first count of death sentence under S.302(b), P.P.C, accused entered into a compromise with legal heirs of deceased and compensation had also been paid, but second count of death under S.7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 had its own implications and was not compoundable under Ss.354(5) & (7), Cr.P.C---Compromise between parties was accepted (only) to the extent of conviction under S.302(b), P.P.C and accused was acquitted of said charge---Regarding death sentence under S.7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, quantum of said sentence could be examined in the present case due to its peculiar facts---Sentence of death awarded to accused under S.7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was converted into life imprisonment without extending benefit of S.382-B, P.P.C, as the same was not allowed by Trial Court, High Court and the Supreme Court---Review petition was disposed of accordingly.

 PCRLJ 2007 Lah 1097     
---S. 7(e)---Appreciation of evidence---Abductee had rightly picked up all the three accused in the identification parade and had also identified them in the Court---Demand of ransom by the accused and payment of Rupees four Ins to them as such according to their instructions had been proved on record---Offence under S.7(e) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, being non-compoundable , any compromise between the parties was of no consequence---Accused had not led any evidence to establish their friendship with the abductee or regarding the complicity of the abductee himself in the crime---Entire ransom amount had been recovered from accused who were arrested by the police from the house on the pointation of abductee---Abductee had no motive for false implication of accused in the case---Incriminating recoveries from the accused including the ransom amount, pistols with live cartridges, mobile phone and motorcycle of abductee, had further connected the accused with the offence---Investigating Officer in the peculiar circumstances of the case could not possibly join persons from the public in recovery proceedings, even otherwise police, witnesses were as good witnesses as other witnesses---Recoveries had corroborated the evidence furnished by the prosecution witnesses---Even if the recoveries had not been proved in a case of kidnapping or abduction for ransom, the determining factor was the object behind the crime---Conviction and sentence of accused were upheld in circumstances.

2014 PLD 644 MUHAMMAD YOUSAF v State
Preamble, Third Sched., Ss.1, 6, 7, 23 & 34---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Transfer of case from Anti- Terrorism Court to regular court---Scope of S.23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Anti- Terrorism Court dismissed applications of accused involved in different offences namely murder by firing, acid throwing and injury caused by firing in mosque, for transfer of their cases to regular courts---Validity---Purpose of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was to prevent terrorism, sectarian violence and conducting speedy trial of heinous offences---In order to decide whether an offence was triable under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 or not, the courts had to see whether the act had tendency to create sense of fear and insecurity in the mind of people or a section of society---Such act might not necessarily have taken place within the view of general public---
Schedule annexed to a statute was as important as the statute itself---Schedule could be used to construe the provisions of the body of the Act---Third Schedule to the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 had to be given its due importance and, first three paragraphs of the same were general in nature while the fourth paragraph specifically described offences---In order to bring an offence within ambit of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and the jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court, nexus of such offence with S.6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was a pre-requisite---
Paragraph 4 of the Schedule to the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 categorically mentioned the offences which would be tried only by the Anti-Terrorism Court---Offences in question were within the purview/ambit of the paragraph 4 of the Third Schedule to the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and were triable by the Anti-Terrorism Court---Petitions were dismissed.
2014 PCrLJ 374 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURT NADEEM vs State
Preamble---Law did not make any distinction in the matter of appreciation of evidence in a case under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 or under normal criminal law---Credibility of witnesses had to be measured with the same yardstick, whether it was an ordinary crime or a crime striking terror in society---Law did not make any distinction either in leading of evidence in its assessment---Rule was one and the same, that was intrinsic worth of testimony and the fact, that it stood the test of cross-examination---Contradictory versions of the prosecution witnesses made before Anti-Terrorism Court and then before court of ordinary jurisdiction, would shake the entire foundation of the prosecution case---By no stretch of imagination, it was possible to reconcile the conflicting statements of the same prosecution witnesses regarding the same event---Said contradiction would sufficiently furnish a clue to veracity of the testimony of those witnesses, and shake their trustworthiness.
2013 MLD 1872 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFP State vs KHAISTA RAHMAN
Preamble---Object---Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was a special law purpose of which was to control terrorism---Schedule offences were made non-compoundable.
2012 PLD 122 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN MUHAMMAD RASOOL vs State
S. 12 & Preamble---Jurisdiction, determination of---Essentials---While determining jurisdiction it would be necessary to examine that the ingredients of the alleged occurrence have nexus with the object of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, for determining whether a particular act is an act of terrorism or not, the motivation, object, design or purpose behind the same has to be seen---In case of any doubt with regard to the meaning of any particular provision, the Preamble of the Act may be considered to arrive at the proper conclusion---Preamble of Anti Terrorism Act, 1997, clearly manifests that the same has been promulgated to control the acts of terrorism, sectarian violence and other heinous offences as defined in S.6 of the said Act.
2012 PLD 122 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN MUHAMMAD RASOOL vs State
Preamble & S.32---Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (XXII of 2000), Preamble & S.14---
Distinguishing features of the two enactments---Under. Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, courts acquire jurisdiction if the offence is triable by them, whereas under Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, courts acquire jurisdiction if offenders are juvenile, irrespective of the nature of offence committed by them--Provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, under its S.32 have the overriding effect over all other laws including the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, whereas under S.14 of said Ordinance its provisions shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force.
2012 PLD 22 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN GUL MUHAMMAD vs State
Preamble & S.6(2)(g)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302(b)---Qatl-e-Amd---"Terrorism"---
Allegation of "Siyahkari"---Jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court---Any offence, where the offender would take the law in his own hands and awards punishment, that offence would fall within the purview of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Venue of the commission of a crime, the time of occurrence, the motive and the fact that whether or not said crime had been witnessed by public at large, were not the only determining factors for deciding the issue, whether a case did or did not fall within the parameters of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Crucial question would be whether said crime had or had not the effect of striking terror or creating a sense of fear and insecurity in the people or any section of the people---Accused, in the present case, had committed the murder of three innocent people on the false allegation of 'Siyahkari', while taking the law in his own hands, such act certainly would have created a sense of fear, panic and terror amongst the villagers---No licence could be granted to anyone to take the law of the land in his own hands and start executing the culprits himself, instead of taking them to the court of law---Murder based on "Ghairat" did not furnish a valid mitigating circumstance for awarding a lesser sentence---Killing of innocent people, specially the women on to pretext of 'Siyahkari' was un-Islamic, illegal and unconstitutional---Under S.6(2)(g) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, in case of unjustified murder by a person, who on account of his immorality or to satisfy his brutal instinct, would take the law in his own hands, was responsible for creating sensation and panic in the society---Offences committed on the pretext of 'Siyahkari' would fall within the domain of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and all the cases pending before the ordinary courts would stand transferred to the Anti-Terrorism Courts.
2012 PLD 22 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN GUL MUHAMMAD vs : State
Ss. 302(b) & 311---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Preamble & Ss.6(2)(g), 7(a)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.345---Qatl-e-amd---Tazir after waiver or compounding of right of qisas in qatl-e-amd---Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was enacted for prevention of terrorism, sectarian violence and speedy trial of heinous offences-Said Act being a special law, private complainant or the legal heirs of the deceased, had no right to compound the "scheduled offence" as those offences were mainly against the State and not against individuals---Offences could not be compounded automatically by legal heirs, but were always through the court; and the court could decline the permission to compromise the offence by the legal heirs of victim---
Even the ordinary courts under S.311, P.P.C., could punish accused, if the offence had been compounded, by the legal heirs, on the basis of "Fasad-Fil-Arz"---Not providing the right to compromise the offence by the legal heirs of deceased, was neither violation of Islamic Injunctions; nor of any fundamental rights.
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.
2011 PLD 1 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURT Mian ABDUR RAZZAQ AAMIR vs FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN
Preamble---Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979), Preamble---
Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance (VIII of 1979), Preamble---Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979), Preamble---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Preamble---Anti Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Preamble---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Preamble---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.203-DD---Revisional and other jurisdiction of Federal Shariat Court---Scope---Final or interim orders passed or judgments delivered by trial courts exercising jurisdiction on criminal side with regard to offences covered by the term "Hudood",
whether mentioned in Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979; Offence of Zina Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979; Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979; Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979; Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997; Anti Terrorism Act, 1997; Penal Code, 1860 or any other law for the time being in force, can be challenged by way of appeal or otherwise only before the Federal Shariat Court and no other court of criminal jurisdiction is competent to entertain and adjudicate upon proceedings connected with Hudood offences---Initiation of proceedings to quash First Information Report or pending criminal proceeding related to Hudood matters are within the exclusive jurisdiction of Federal Shariat Court in view of the mandate of Art.203-DD of the Constitution---Remedy against grant or refusal of bail before or during the trial of any of the above mentioned offences lies before Federal Shariat Court alone and no other court has jurisdiction to entertain any proceedings in such matters---Federal Shariat Court directed that present declaration relating to Protection of Women (Criminal Laws Amendment) Act, 2006, The Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 as well as Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 shall take effect as from 22nd June, 2011 by which date necessary steps be taken by the Federal Government to amend the impugned laws in conformity with present declaration whereafter the impugned provision shall cease to be effective and present judgment of the Federal Shariat Court will be operative as on 22-6-2011---Other items of the Declaration become operative forthwith.
2007 PLD 571 SUPREME-COURT FAZAL DADvs Col.(Rtd.) GHULAM MUHAMMAD MALIK
---S. 6 & Preamble---Acts of terrorism---Trial---Object of promulgation of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was to control acts of terrorism, sectarian violence and other heinous offences as defined in S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and their speedy trial---To bring the offence within the ambit of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, it is essential to examine that offence should have nexus with the object of the Act and is covered by its relevant provisions.
2007 SCMR 808 SUPREME-COURT GHULAM NABI vs State
---Ss. 302(b), 364-A, 382, 404, 441, 109 & 34---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Anti- Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Preamble---Reappraisal of evidence---Last seen evidence---
Witnesses of last seen evidence and recoveries were quite independent and confidence inspiring---Judicial confession recorded on last day of physical remand---Effect---Allegation against accused/petitioner was that he, after kidnapping a minor girl, committed her murder---
Complainant (father of deceased) lodged F.I.R. against accused on the basis of suspicion and last seen evidence---Trial Court/Special Court convicted accused and awarded him sentence of death on two counts viz. under S.302(b), P.P.C. and 364-A, P.P.C.---Appeal filed thereagainst was dismissed by High Court---Accused contended that last seen evidence did not have any evidentiary value; that recovery of dead body on pointation of accused and golden ear-rings of deceased might not be sufficient to prove charge of murder; that judicial confession of accused was manipulated by police by way of torture , hence, the same was of no value; that judicial confession of accused was recorded on last day of his physical remand with police and such facts and circumstances of case might not justify capital punishment, rather sentence of life imprisonment was to be sufficient to meet the ends of justice---Validity---Witnesses of last seen
evidence and recoveries were quite independent and confidence -inspiring---Accused had not been able to point out any , material discrepancy or contradiction in prosecution evidence to suggest any doubt qua the credibility of evidence of recovery of dead body and other articles belonging to deceased at his pointation---Witness of last seen evidence had no enmity, personal grudge or Malice against accused to make false statement---Witnesses of recovery of dead body and ear-rings of deceased were entirely independent and had no reason to make false statement against accused in a case of capital punishment---Magistrate who recorded confessional statement of accused had categorically stated that he recorded confessional statement of accused after completion of all formalities, providing sufficient time to him to think over the matter before making confession---Perusal of statement of witnesses together with confessional statement of accused would suggest that there was no clement of coercion, undue influence or pressure rather record showed that confession was made voluntarily and was truthful---Mere fact that confessional statement was made on last day of physical remand was not indicative of any doubt regarding its voluntariness to exclude the same from consideration, instead it was to ensure its voluntariness because accused was aware of the fact that he would not be again given in custody of police and was being sent to judicial custody---
Accused had committed murder of a girl of minor age by way of suffocation and in a brutal manner, therefore, he did not deserve leniency in matter of sentence---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
2006 PLD 331 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH QAMAR HUSSAIN SHAH vs State
----Preamble---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Preamble
---Anti-Terrorism Act
(XXVII of 1997), Preamble---Jurisdiction of Courts created under Control of
Narcotic Substances
Act, 1997 and Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 to take cognizance and try the offences of said Acts in
respect of all the accused persons including major and minor---Scope and extent
---Principles.
2006 PLD 331 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH QAMAR HUSSAIN SHAH vs
State
--Preamble---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), Preamble---Anti-Terrorism Act
(XXVII of 1997), Preamble---Provisions of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 to be read with other laws including Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Principles.
2005 YLR 2363 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE AKHTAR HUSSAIN vs SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT NO.3, LAHORE
---Preamble---Object and purpose of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, had provided for prevention of terrorism, sectarian violence and for speedy trial of heinous offences and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto.
2005 PCRLJ 1442
QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN State vs
Jamadar
MUHAMMAD KHAN
 
 
---Preamble, Ss.6, 7 & 8---
Object and purpose of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---
Object to
promulgate Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was to control the acts of terrorism, Sectarian violence
and other heinous offences as defined in S.6 of the said Act and their speedy trials---Such offences should have nexus with the object of the Act and should be covered by its Ss.6, 7 & 8.
2005 MLD 13
LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE MUHAMMAD YOUSAF OJLA, SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE, SIALKOT,
PRESENTLY ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, FAISALABAD vs
Malik
MUHAMMAD IQBAL, EX-DIG, GUJRANWALA and 17 others
 
----Preamble & S.12---Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was a special enactment and it had meaning and spirit of its provisions---Special enactment needed to be taken in perspective of its own object and any departure from same would be negation of its object and spirit.
2003 CLD 1797 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH SULEMAN vs MANAGER, DOMESTIC BANKING, HABIB BANK LTD.
----Preamble---Terrorism is a fast going phenomena ---Making laths and taking appropriate measures by all civilized States within their Constitutional system to combat terrorism would be in larger public interest.
2002 YLR 875 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE MUHAMMAD RASHID vs THE STATE
----Preamble---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302(b) & 382---Trial by the Judge, Special Court, Anti-Terrorism, is not vitiated merely because the accused were not charged or convicted under the provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
2002 PLD
775 SUPREME-COURT BASHIR AHMED vs THE STATE
----S. 10(4)
---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 7 & 12 & Sched.-- Gang rape---Jurisdiction of
Special Court---Scope---Trial of scheduled offence under the provision of S.12 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 is exclusively vested in the Court constituted under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
2002 PLD 841 SUPREME-COURT MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ vs MUHAMMAD ASHIQ
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 ----Preamble---Object---Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was brought into force for the prevention of terrorism, sectarian violence and for speedy trial of heinous offences for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto.
2014 PLD 644 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs State
Preamble, Third Sched., Ss.1, 6, 7, 23 & 34---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Transfer of case from Anti-Terrorism Court to regular court---Scope of S.23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Anti-Terrorism Court dismissed applications of accused involved in different offences namely murder by firing, acid throwing and injury caused by firing in mosque, for transfer of their cases to regular courts---Validity---Purpose of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was to prevent terrorism, sectarian violence and conducting speedy trial of heinous offences---In order to decide whether an offence was triable under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 or not, the courts had to see whether the act had tendency to create sense of fear and insecurity in the mind of people or a section of society---Such act might not necessarily have taken place within
the view of general public---Schedule annexed to a statute was as important as the statute itself---Schedule could be used to construe the provisions of the body of the Act---Third Schedule to the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 had to be given its due importance and, first three paragraphs of the same were general in nature while the fourth paragraph specifically described offences---In order to bring an offence within ambit of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and the jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court, nexus of such offence with S.6 of the Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997 was a pre-requisite---Paragraph 4 of the Schedule to the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 categorically mentioned the offences which would be tried only by the Anti-Terrorism Court---Offences in question were within the purview/ambit of the paragraph 4 of the Third Schedule to the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and were triable by the Anti-Terrorism Court---
Petitions were dismissed.
2008 PLD 503 SUPREME-COURT MUHAMMAD LATIF vs State
S. 302(b)---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7-1(a)---Re-appraisal of evidence---Tripple murder---Circumstantial evidence---Extra-judicial confession---Death penalty awarded to accused by trial Court was affirmed by High Court---Plea raised by accused was that upon circumstantial evidence one could not be convicted and awarded penalty of death---Validity---
Such plea was misconceived because there was no bar or hindrance to pass sentence upon a killer of three human beings when chain of guilt was found unbroken and irresistible conclusion of guilt was surfacing from evidence which was connecting accused with commission of offence without any doubt or suspicion---If circumstantial evidence brought on record was of such nature then conclusion would be in shape of conviction and no other conclusion would be drawn by any stretch of imagination in such a case---For guilt of accused, penalty of death or life imprisonment would be a normal event---Evidence of prosecution witnesses in the present case was found consistent and accused had not been able to shake their credence, therefore, extra-judicial confession made before prosecution witnesses, whom accused considered to be respectable persons for his assistance, could not be disbelieved when they deposed it on oath before trial Court---Disclosure of offence from mouth of accused had led to other corroborative and cogent evidence proving commission of offence by accused---Evidence available on file proved that it was act of accused, who had committed heinous crime of murder of innocent baby and two ladies---Such was tyrannous and callous actions of accused who had not only cut the throats of two ladies but also a four months baby---Events and circumstantial evidence proved that accused was the person who had committed cold-blooded offence of murder---
Supreme Court declined to interfere with the conviction and sentence of death awarded to accused---Appeal was dismissed.
2001 PCRLJ 255 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURT AZEEBA KAUSAR vs ZAFAR IQBAL
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 ----Ss. 1(3) & 12---Anti-Terrorist Court, jurisdiction of ---Retrospectivity- -Offence was committed prior to the promulgation of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, but the trial of the case was initiated in the Anti-Terrorism Court--Validity---Anti-Terrorism Court had no jurisdiction to try the offence and the offender was liable only under the law existing at the time of commission of the offence.
Section 3
2012 MLD 158 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN SHER AHMED vs KHUDA-E-RAHIM
Ss. 4 & 5---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302/34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 3, 6, 13 [as amended by Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Ordinance (XXXIX of 2011)] & 39(1)---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 9 & 199---Constitutional petition---Double murder on allegation of siyahkari---
Conviction and sentence awarded to accused on 27-10-1999 by Special Court after his trial in absentia---Order of Sessions Judge suspending such conviction/ sentence and directing fresh trial of accused on his application made in November, 2010 under S. 5-A(7) of Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975---Validity---Special Court was not in existence on the date of such application, rather its successor forum i.e. Anti-Terrorism Court established under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was in existence---Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 was repealed vide S. 39(1) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, but acts done under Act of 1975 were given due protection by S. 39(2) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Accused had committed double murder on bald allegation of siyahkari in a brutal manner by means of firing with kalashinkov---Such act of accused being a Scheduled offence fell within ambit of S. 6(ii)(g) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and his case was exclusively triable by Special Court constituted under S. 3 thereof---Neither law nor religion permitted so-called honour killing, which amounted to murder---Such iniquitous and vile act of accused was violative of Art. 9 of the Constitution---Present case was instituted under repealed Act of 1975, whereunder accused could be punished by Judge of Anti-Terrorism Court, if prosecution succeeded to establish his guilt---High Court set aside impugned order and directed Sessions Judge to transmit main case along with such application to concerned Anti-Terrorism Court for its decision in accordance with law.
Section 6 of ATC
2015 PCrLJ 78
KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH GHULAM ALI alias ALI vs State
Ss. 561-A & 169---
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 365, 147, 149, 324, 458, 148 & 504---Anti-
Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine person, rioting, common object, attempt to commit qatl-i- amd, lurking house-trespass or house breaking by night after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint, rioting armed with deadly weapon, intentional insult with intent to provoke
breach of the peace and act of terrorism---Quashing of proceedings---Inherent powers of High
Court---
Scope---Police submitted report under S. 169, Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate
which was not agreed to by him---
Contention of the accused was that the order was non-
speaking---Validity---Magistrate had
passed the impugned order in a slipshod and hasty
manner---
Non-speaking orders were to be discouraged and court was to give reasons for
passing administrative as well as judicial order---Case was remanded to the Judicial Magistrate for passing speaking order.
2015 MLD 313
QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN BASHIR AHMED vs State
 
Ss. 365-A & 34---
Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6(e) & 7(e)---Kidnapping for ransom,
common intention, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---
Accused
persons being with muffled faces at the time of alleged occurrence, neither complainant nor any body else could identify them---F.I.R., was lodged on the next day of occurrence, despite
levies check Post, was nearby the place of alleged occurrence---Statement of complainant had shown that F.I.R. was lodged with consultation and was an afterthought---Such delay in lodging F.I.R., could not be taken lightly, as it cast serious doubt in the case of the prosecution---No explanation was on record with respect to inordinately lodging F.I.R.---Names of accused persons came in picture through the supplementary statements of the complainant for the first time---Neither the Fard-e-Bayan, was reliable nor the supplementary statement was worth credence, as the same had not been filed promptly---False implication of accused persons, could not be ruled out of consideration in circumstances---Prosecution story as narrated by the complainant, did not appeal to logic---Statement of prosecution witness, was not worth credence, and it appeared that said witness had concealed the actual dispute between the parties---All prosecution witnesses were closely related to each other, and one of them was closely related to alleged abductee---Prosecution had failed to produce any independent witness to corroborate the prosecution case---Accused persons could not be assumed to be culprits solely on the statements of witnesses who were interested and were closely related to the alleged abductee---Recovery of abductee was neither effected from possession of accused persons, nor on their pointation---No ransom amount was paid for release of the abductee---
Alleged abductee, recorded his statement before the Investigating Officer after considerable delay after his alleged release/recovery without any explanation, which created serious doubt about his abduction by accused persons---Identification parade conducted by the prosecution was also of no avail to the case of prosecution, as the complainant in the supplementary statement, had failed to give the description of accused persons---While conducting the identification parade, the legal formalities, were not complied with and followed by Judicial Magistrate---Statement of witnesses were not free from doubt as same suffered from sufficient infirmities, dishonest improvements and contradictions---Prosecution had failed to prove the charge against accused persons beyond any shadow of doubt---Trial Court while delivering the impugned judgment, had failed to consider evidence available on record---Impugned judgment passed by Special Court, was set aside and accused were acquitted and released extending them benefit of doubt in circumstances.
2015 PCrLJ 628 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH SHAHID ZAFAR vs State
Ss. 6, 7 & 8---"Terrorist act", determination of---Jurisdiction of Special Court---For determination as to whether an offence would fall within the ambit of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, it would be essential to have a glance over the allegations made in the F.I.R., piece of evidence and surrounding circumstances; it was also essential to examine, whether alleged offence had any nexus with the object of the case as contemplated under Ss.6, 7 & 8 of Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997---Whether act of accused was an "act of terrorism" or not, the motivation, object, design and purpose behind the said act, was to be examined; it was also to be seen as to whether said act had created a sense of fear and insecurity in the public, or in a section of public, or community or in any sect---Where action would result in striking terror on creating fear, panic, sensation, helplessness and sense of insecurity among the people in the particular area, it would amount to "terror"; and such an action squarely fell within the ambit of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and would be triable by a Special Court constituted for such purpose-- -Courts had only to see whether the "terrorist act" was such which would have the tendency to create sense of fear and insecurity in the minds of the people or any section of the society.
2015 PCrLJ 611 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs SAGEER AHMED alias BHAYA
S. 6---Anti-Terrorism Court, jurisdiction of---Scope---Jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court has to be determined according to mandate of relevant penal provisions provided in S. 6 of Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997, at the time of framing of charge.
2015 PCrLJ 611 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs SAGEER AHMED alias BHAYA
Ss. 302 & 365-A---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7(a)(e)---Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13(e)---Qat-i-amd, kidnapping for ransom--- "Act of terrorism"--- Determination- --Grievance of complainant was that Anti-Terrorism Court transferred the trial to court of plenary jurisdiction on the ground that offences did not contain element of terrorism---Validity- --Complainant, during trial, had categorically deposed that his son was kidnapped and ransom was demanded from him and his son was murdered---After recording evidence, mere tentative assessment of Anti-Terrorism Court that it had no jurisdiction was injudicious and contrary to law---No enmity existed between the parties, action of accused resulted in striking terror and sense of insecurity among the people in a particular vicinity and it amounted to create terror in business community---Anti-Terrorism Court had exclusive jurisdiction in the matter as action of accused fell within the ambit of section 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---High Court declared the order passed by Anti-Terrorism Court to be illegal and injudicious and was set aside---High Court directed Anti-Terrorism Court to proceed in case under the provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and decide the case in accordance with law---Revision was allowed in circumstances.
2015 PLD 145 SUPREME-COURT MUHAMMAD RAHEEL alias SHAFIQUE vs State
Ss. 6 & 12---Sectarian killing---Anti-Terrorism Court, jurisdiction of---Scope---Sectarian killings were also included in the definition of 'terrorism' contained in S.6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and, thus, an Anti-Terrorism Court was possessed of the requisite jurisdiction to try a case of sectarian killing.
2015 PCrLJ 433 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court SHER SULAIMAN vs DSP BABAR KHAN
Ss. 302 & 324---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.132 & 200---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Private complaint---Dismissal of---Protection against prosecution---Private complaint filed by petitioner/complainant was dismissed by Special Court on the grounds that it was not supported by sanction as required by S.132, Cr.P.C. and that offence alleged against accused persons/respondents, did not fall under Ss.6 & 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Validity- --People whose relief cheques were not cashed had gathered in the mob to protest---Accused persons, who were Police Officials, for dispersing the mob of protestors opened fire, and two persons died and many others injured---Contention of accused persons was that incident took place under compelling circumstances because the mob was going to destroy public property in large scale; and fire was opened in good faith by them to abstain the mob from taking the law
in hand---Validity---Version of accused persons that firing was opened under compelling situation, was not enough to overlook the murder of two persons---Justice demanded that truth should be found out so that no public servant dare to act going beyond his authority---
Section 132, Cr.P.C. was a protection against prosecution; and to take benefit under said section, accused persons had to prove that the act complained of was done under circumstances mentioned in that section---Accused persons must place the material and show circumstances before the court justifying that mob was unlawful and the acts they did were purported to have been done while dispersing the mob---Complaint was dismissed on the ground that same did not fall within the scope of S. 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Complainant failed to prove that act done by accused persons fell within ambit of S. 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, but when court concluded that S. 6 was not attracted to the matter and complaint was not triable by the Special Judge, then court was required to send the complaint to the court of ordinary jurisdiction, which could give finding regarding applicability or non-application of S. 132, Cr.P.C.---Revision was converted into appeal and was partially allowed by Chief Court---
Impugned order of the Special Court was set aside, with the observation that S.6 of Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997 was not attracted to the matter---Special Court was directed to transfer the complaint to Additional Sessions Judge concerned for its disposal in accordance with law, in circumstances.
2015 PCrLJ 438 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH JAVED IQBAL Vs State
Ss. 6, 7 & 23---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 324 & 34---Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13(d)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.345, Sched. Third, item No.4(iii)---Act of terrorism, qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention, possessing unlicensed arms---Appreciation of evidence---Transfer of case from Anti-Terrorism Court to Court of Session---Compromise, effect of---Application of accused filed under S.23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, for transfer of his case from the Anti-Terrorism Court to the Court of Session, was dismissed---Accused had committed murder of his real sister with fire-arm inside the court room, which under item No.4(iii), of the Third Schedule, annexed to Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was Scheduled Offence, exclusively triable by Anti-Terrorism Court---Contention was that complainant/husband of the deceased having entered into a compromise with the family of accused, by consent, matter could be transferred to the Court of Session; and parties be allowed to settle the matter in accordance with law---Validity---Accused was charged inter alia with an offence under Ss.6 & 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, which did not find place in any of the columns of the Table appended to the provisions of S.345, Cr.P.C., detailing the compoundable offences---Allowing prayer to transfer case from Anti-Terrorism Court on ground of compromise would literally mean converting a non-compoundable offence into a compoundable offence, which was a total novel concept; and not recognized by the law---Law had clearly limited the cases which could be compoundable/ compromised and did not provide any scope for converting a non-compoundable offence into a compoundable, merely because the parties had entered into a compromise---Such an action would not only frustrate the provisions of S.345, Cr.P.C., but would make all offences as compoundable which would be against the public policy and beyond the competence of court, and could not be allowed---
Neither jurisdiction could be conferred on a court which had no jurisdiction to adjudicate an
issue, nor a court could be deprived of its jurisdiction for the convenience or at the request of the parties---Accused had killed his sister on account of her free will marriage in the court room, where justice was dispensed and people had confidence to be treated in accordance with law---Anti-Terrorism Court, had rightly rejected request for transferring the case to the Court of Session, in circumstances.
2015 YLR 764
KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH JAVED State
 
Ss.6 (k), 7 & 25 (8)---
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.385, 386 & 506-B---
Criminal Procedure Code
(V of 1898), S.561-A---
Taking Bhatta (Extortion of money)---Suspension of sentence---
Delay in
deciding appeal---Inherent jurisdiction of High Court---Bar on suspension of sentence---
Accused
was convicted by Trial Court and sentenced to five years of imprisonment---Validity---
Appeal
was to be decided within 7 days and more than two years had passed---
Much more time would
be required to hear the appeal and dispose of, as there was tremendously heavy backlog of such appeals filed earlier than that of accused---Accused remained in jail throughout the period ever since his arrest---High Court treated the case of accused as one of hardship and suspended the sentence---Bail was allowed in circumstances.
2014 PLD 547 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH AZHAR HUSSAIN RIZVI Vs State
Ss. 6, 7 & 28---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302---Act of "terrorism"---Qatl-e-amd---Proof---
Indiscriminate firing---Grievance of accused was that Trial Court under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, declined to transfer the case to court of ordinary jurisdiction---Validity---Wherever any action was taken which created fear and insecurity in any section of people, such offence would fall within the ambit of case as contemplated under S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Mob of 30 / 40 motorcyclists including accused, while carrying dead body from hospital to graveyard, were indiscriminately firing throughout the way-F.I.R. did not mention that firing was in retaliation of firing from any side---If there wax no firing on funeral procession then there was no reason of making firing on the way to graveyard---Such firing was only with the object of creating fear and insecurity in people, which would come within the definition of "terrorism"---Trial Court on the basis of material available it her was justified in coming to conclusion that case of accused was within the meaning of S. 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Trial Court rightly dismissed application of accused for sending his case to ordinary Court---High Court declined to set aside the order passed by Trial Court---Petition was dismissed in circumstances.
2014 MLD 1813 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH MUHAMMAD UMER MANGRIO Vs State
Ss. 6, 7 & 23---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324, 353 & 216-A---Attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servants from discharging of his duty, harbouring
robbery or dacoity act of terrorism
---Application for transfer of case from Anti-Terrorism Court
to Ordinary Court was dismissed---
Validity---Taking cognizance and forming opinion regarding
an offence to be either scheduled one or not, could not be treated as two separate acts, which were to be performed by the court at different times---Court would take cognizance of a given offence, only when it was without any doubt with regard to its jurisdiction to try the offence by examining the material presented to it in terms of S.173, Cr.P.C.---Law had provided for one exception that a Magistrate taking cognizance of offence triable exclusively by a Court of Session, would without recording the evidence send the case to court of session for trial in terms of S.190(3), Cr.P.C.---Such exception was entirely cognate with design contemplated under S.193, Cr.P.C.---Court was competent to make up its mind as to whether the offence was scheduled one or not at the time of taking cognizance of offence on the basis of material submitted to it in shape of challan---In case the court decided in affirmative, it would proceed with the matter in accordance with law and it would not restrict the jurisdiction of the court to hold otherwise at a subsequent stage, but the exercise of jurisdiction to transfer the case to a regular court, could be resorted to by the court on the basis of new material brought before it, either by prosecution or defence---Scheme of law in terms of S.23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, appeared to have enjoined upon the court to minutely examine all the material presented at the time of challan---Impugned order appeared to have been passed in haste which did not reconcile with the judicial norms and requirements of law---Court could have waited and postponed the decision on the application of accused till the submission of challan to form its opinion that the offence was scheduled one or not, instead of dismissing it in hasty manner---
Impugned order being not sustainable under the law, was set aside---Application of accused would be deemed to be pending before the court, which would be decided afresh, evaluating the material submitted to it.
2014 PCrLJ 1123 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH HAJAN Vs State
Ss. 365-A & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.6(2)(e)---Kidnapping for ransom, common intention, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Unexplained delay of 55 days in lodging F.I.R., had created serious doubt; and it could be gathered that F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant after due deliberation, negotiation, discussion and afterthought with sole object; and ulterior motive to get accused persons convicted---Accused persons were not identified as culprits who had allegedly kidnapped the complainant---Culprits who allegedly received ransom, were muffled faces---Prosecution witness, who allegedly remained in contact with the culprits through mobile phone, and negotiated, and settled the quantum of the ransom, had neither mentioned said mobile number in his statement, recorded by the Police, nor disclosed in his evidence recorded before the Trial Court---Prosecution witness, who allegedly made payment of ransom amount to the culprits, neither mentioned serial numbers of currency notes, nor any identification marks were mentioned by the witness---Alleged recovery of cash from the house of accused persons could not be believed---Prosecution witnesses had introduced dishonest improvements in their statements during the trial, and made conflicting depositions---Abductees, were not recovered from accused, nor any ransom money was proved to have been demanded by him, or paid to him---No identification parade had been held for identification of accused; and prosecution had failed to establish his nexus with the alleged episode---Place of captivity was neither pointed out to the Investigating Officer, nor such
mashirnama was prepared---Such missing piece of evidence alone, was fatal dent to the prosecution case, when the complainant had mentioned the place of captivity in F.I.R.---People of different castes were residing adjacent to the place of incident, but none from the locality was examined by the Police, or produced before the Trial Court to prima facie establish that the complainant was abducted---Series of admissions and material contradictions, had made the prosecution story highly doubtful---Prosecution had failed to bring guilt of accused persons to home, and charge could not be established beyond any shadow of doubt---Impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court was set aside, accused were acquitted from the charge and were released, in circumstances.
2014 PCrLJ 1052 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Vs UMER FAROOQUE JUDGE, ANTI- TERRORISM COURT, MIRPURKHAS
Ss. 6, 7 & 23---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 324, 337-F(ii), 337-H(2), 364, 147, 148 & 149---
Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Act of terrorism, qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, causing badiah, rash or negligent act, kidnapping or abducting in order to murder, rioting, common object---Application by both the parties under S.23 of Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997 seeking transfer of the case from the Court of Anti-Terrorism to the ordinary Court of Session, was declined---Validity---Contents of the F.I.Rs. and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in both the cases had not been taken by the Judge of Anti-Terrorism Court with particular reference to application of the provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---No finding had been recorded to the effect as to whether the alleged incident struck terrorism and created any sense of insecurity in the public at large---Nothing had been stated in both the F.I.Rs. by the complainants, which could suggest that alleged incident, which reportedly took place at late hour at night, was witnessed by large number of people of the vicinity creating terror and sense of insecurity in the public or society---No lethal weapons i.e. Kalashnikov and Repeater as alleged in the F.I.Rs. were used in the incident---Judge of the Anti-Terrorism Court, while passing impugned orders, had also failed to examine, as to whether the ingredients of alleged offence had any nexus with the object of the case as contemplated under Ss.6, 7, 8 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---No finding had been recorded by the Judge of Anti-Terrorism Court with regard to gravity and heinousness of the alleged crime, nor the motive, object, design or purpose behind alleged offence had been discussed in the impugned orders---Anti-Terrorism Court had merely observed that alleged crime had the tendency to create terror and fear in the society---Neither any reason had been given, nor reference to any material or evidence had been made by the Anti-Terrorism Court for such conclusion---For the purpose of attracting the provisions of any section or Schedule to the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, the element of striking terror or creation of the sense of fear and insecurity in the public at large, by doing any act or thing, was sine qua non---Merely filing of bail application for the release of accused before Anti- Terrorism Court, would not debar accused from raising an objection with regard to jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court and to seek transfer of the case to the court of ordinary jurisdiction under S.23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Present cases were not triable by Anti-Terrorism Court as the ingredients of Ss. 6 & 7 of said Act, were not attracted to the facts of the cases---
Impugned orders declining transfer of case to ordinary Court of Session were set aside, in circumstances.
2014 PCrLJ 928 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH MUHAMMAD HANIF alias POCHO Vs State
Ss. 302, 149, 353, 324 & 404---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.6(a)(b)---Qatl-e-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharging of his duty, attempt to commit qatl-e- amd, dishonestly misappropriation of property and act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence- --Benefit of doubt---Out of five accused persons, two were identified by the complainant, but complainant could not give the features and figures of remaining three unknown accused mentioned in the F.I.R.---Source of head light of the vehicle in the midnight was a weak type of evidence regarding seeing a person from a distance of about one or two acres---Recovery of kalashnikov from the cattle pan of accused was quite doubtful---Accused had also been acquitted from the case under S.13(e) of Arms Ordinance, 1965---Identification parade of accused held after a considerable delay of about six days had lost its sanctity, when such delay was not explained---Prosecution had examined in all 13 witnesses including the eye-witnesses, but no tangible or unimpeachable evidence had been brought on record to prove the charge against accused---Recognition of accused at the place of incident from a considerable distance, was highly doubtful; and his identification by the prosecution witnesses after about 6 months, was also doubtful---Many circumstances existed creating doubt in the prosecution case, accused was entitled to be extended the benefit of doubt---Prosecution having failed to prove charges against accused beyond reasonable shadow of doubt, impugned judgment was set aside, accused was acquitted from the charges, and was directed to be released, in circumstances.
2014 PLD 203 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH UMAR FAROOQUE Vs State
S. 302---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 6---Qatl-e-amd---Act of terrorism---Proof---Tripple murder---Complainant applied before Trial Court for transfer of the case to Anti-Terrorism Court which was dismissed---Plea raised by complainant was that murder of three persons caused terror amongst people of locality---Validity---F.I.R. showed that incident was result of previous enmity between parties over a murder---Killing of three persons did not bring case within the ambit of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---While deciding question of jurisdiction, it was necessary to examine ingredients of alleged occurrence and that the same had any nexus with object of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---For determining whether a particular act was an act of terrorism or not, the motivation, object design or purpose behind the same had to be seen---If act of accused was simply result of previous enmity or personal vendetta, the same would not attract the provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Offence committed by accused was not covered by S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Trial Court as the same did not suffer from any illegality---Petition was dismissed in circumstance.
2014 PCrLJ 754 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE LORY VIE PIMENTEL SPECIAL JUDGE ANTI-TERRORISM COURT NO.IV, LAHORE
Ss. 6, 7 & 23---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 365---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 265-D- --Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Act of terrorism---Return of case to Regular Court---Petitioner/complainant was aggrieved of the order passed by Anti-Terrorism Court, whereby case was transferred to the court of regular jurisdiction---Validity---
Complainant was working as maid under an agreement in the house of accused and allegedly she was maltreated and her mobile phone was also snatched---Such act could not be termed as an act of "terrorism"---Before framing of charge Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court after having considered that facts of the case did not satisfy ingredients of S.365-A, P.P.C. rightly passed the order of transfer of the case---Petitioner failed to point out any illegality/infirmity in the order passed by Anti-Terrorism Court---Petition was dismissed in circumstances.
2014 PCrLJ 726 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE MUHAMMAD ASIF Vs State
S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 324, 353, 109, 34, 427, 201 & 186---Anti- Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6, 7 & 21(l)---Qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, abetment, common intention, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender, obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions, acts of terrorism---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Co-accused persons allegedly killed police officials and other deceased persons---Allegation against accused was that he drove the co-accused persons to the place of occurrence---Accused was only ascribed role of conspiracy in the F.I.R.---Occurrence was committed by four unknown persons, but subsequently, complainant made supplementary statement indicating that accused was driving the car in which the co-accused persons came at the spot and resorted to firing---
Accused was found innocent during investigation and in report under S. 173, Cr.P.C. his name was put in Column No.2---One of the co-accused who was assigned a role similar to that of accused had already been released on bail---Accused was also the complainant of an earlier case, wherein a deceased of the present occurrence and his brother were nominated for the crime, therefore, probability of false implication of accused in the present case could not be ruled out---Accused was no more required for further investigation---Case was one of further inquiry---Accused was released on bail in circumstances.
2014 PCrLJ 579 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH BAHADUR Vs State
Ss. 365-A, 148 & 149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Kidnapping for receiving ransom amount, rioting, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Incident of kidnapping of baby aged about 4/5 years, had taken place in presence of her father and prosecution witnesses---Report was made by the complainant to the Police without any loss of time, and the complainant had fully supported the contents of F.I.R.---Accused was apprehended after
encounter between Police and accused in presence of Police Officials, and baby was got recovered from possession of accused---All witnesses were subjected to cross-examination, but nothing had come on record to discredit their evidence---Witnesses were natural and independent, who had no enmity with accused---Merely claiming enmity with the complainant over a house, without bringing any evidence on record in proof of such claim, was not sufficient to believe the plea of accused with regard to plea of enmity with the complainant---Non- examination of one eye-witness, was not fatal to prosecution case, as the prosecution was not required to examine each and every witness in the case---Quality and not the quantity of the evidence would decide the fate of criminal case---Confidence-inspiring ocular testimony of prosecution witnesses was also corroborated by the fact that accused was caught hold at the spot along with pistol and kidnapped baby---In absence of any error or illegality in the impugned judgment warranting interference by High Court, same was maintained and appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.
2014 PLD 383 SUPREME-COURT MUHAMMAD NAWAZ Vs State
S. 345--- Penal Code (XLV of 1860),Ss. 302(b), 324, 353, 148, 149 & 337-F(iii)---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6(m) & (n), 7(a), (c) & (h)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.188---Review of Supreme Court judgment---Murder of police official while on duty---Act of terrorism---
Compounding of offence under S. 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Scope---Compromise between convict and legal heirs of deceased---Effect---Accused allegedly fired at and killed a police official during a police raid---Anti-Terrorism Court sentenced accused to death on two counts, one under S. 302(b), P.P.C and second under S.7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Death sentence awarded to accused was confirmed by the High Court---Petition for leave to appeal filed by accused before Supreme Court was dismissed, against which accused had filed a review petition---During pendency of review petition, accused entered into a compromise with legal heirs of deceased-police official and requested the Supreme Court to accept the said compromise and acquit him---Validity---Merits of the present case pertaining to offence under S.302(b), P.P.C were no more required to be dilated upon because of the compromise---
Statements of eye-witnesses (police officials) and recoveries made during investigation established that deceased-police official was murdered when he was on official duty, and such findings were upheld by the High Court and Supreme Court---Offence under S.353, P.P.C stood proved against accused as he fired at and killed a police official, who was performing his official duty, therefore, offence under S.7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was also established because murder of a police official without personal enmity amounted to create terror and insecurity in the vicinity---Offence under S.6(2)(n) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 also stood established as act of accused involved serious violence against a member of police force---Regarding first count of death sentence under S.302(b), P.P.C, accused entered into a compromise with legal heirs of deceased and compensation had also been paid, but second count of death under S.7 of Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997 had its own implications and was not compoundable under Ss.354(5) & (7), Cr.P.C---Compromise between parties was accepted (only) to the extent of conviction under S.302(b), P.P.C and accused was acquitted of said charge---Regarding death sentence under S.7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, quantum of said sentence could be examined in the present case
due to its peculiar facts---Sentence of death awarded to accused under S.7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was converted into life imprisonment without extending benefit of S.382-B, P.P.C, as the same was not allowed by Trial Court, High Court and the Supreme Court---Review petition was disposed of accordingly.
2014 PLD 164 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH WAJID ALI Vs CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.1
Ss. 6 & 7---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.503 & 506---Act of terrorism---Scope---Criminal intimidation---Ingredients---Appreciation of evidence---"Action" as defined in subsection (2) of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, if qualified the condition of involvement of the use of fire-arms, explosive, or any other weapon, would fall within meanings of "terrorism"---In the present case, it was not alleged that any of the person, forming mob, was armed with any weapon; alleged resistance, offered by the mob, therefore, could not be an act of 'terrorism'---Simple threats, were not sufficient to constitute criminal intimidation, within the scope of S.503, P.P.C., unless it was caused to a person to do an act, who was not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act, which that person was legally bound to do---Ingredients of criminal intimidation, being missing in the matter, Ss.6 & 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, were not applicable in the matter.
2014 PLD 160 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH NAZAKAT ALI Vs State
Ss. 302 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6(2)(m)(n), 7, 13 & 23---Qatl-e-amd, common intention, act of terrorism---Dismissal of application for transfer of case from Anti- terrorism Court to regular court by accused---Validity---Sufficient material had been collected to create a nexus between the Scheduled offence allegedly committed by accused---Accused had launched an assault upon the member of Police Force (S.H.O.) as to deter him from performing his official duties; and had committed his murder---If such allegations were accepted as correct on the basis of material available on record, 'actus reus' attributed to accused would attract the provisions of S.6(2)(m)(n) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Accused being subordinate to deceased S.H.O., by such act of accused it had created sense of insecurity in Police Officials---Anti- Terrorism Court had exclusive jurisdiction to try the case and had rightly framed the charge against accused---No illegality or infirmity in the impugned order had been pointed out and it was based upon sound reasons---Impugned order was maintained---Petition being without any merit was dismissed, with direction to the Ante-Terrorism Court to proceed with the case expeditiously, as provided in the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
2014 YLR 742 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH BAHADUR Vs State
Ss. 324, 353, 148 & 149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13(d)---Attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, rioting, act of terrorism and possessing
unlicensed arms---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account of the occurrence had been furnished by Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, being the complainant---Testimony of prosecution witnesses who were Police Officials, had established act of perpetration by accused---Version of said witnesses was consistent on material points and facts---Some discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which were minor in nature, had no bearing; and did not affect the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court---Prosecution witnesses, though Police Officials, yet there appeared to be no reason to tell a lie by indicating accused---
Nothing came on record to suggest that the Investigating Agency had motive to set up the witnesses to depose against accused falsely---Truthfulness of the ocular testimony, could not be questioned on minor contradictions or discrepancies---Police Officials were as good witnesses as any other citizen, unless any mala fide was established against them---Deposition of the Police Officials, could not be brushed aside simply on the bald allegation that they belonged to the Police department---Accused who had pleaded that case against him was false, and had been registered due to inimical terms with the informer on the dispute of a house, could not produce documentary proof to prove said plea---Counsel for accused, had not been able to point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence or contradiction on material particulars in the statements of the prosecution witnesses resulting into miscarriage of justice---Prosecution had succeeded to establish its case and accused had failed to prove his innocence---Prosecution having established its case against accused beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt, no reason was available to interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court in recording conviction and sentence against accused.
2014 PCrLJ 43 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH SUNDER JAKHRANI Vs Haji MUHAMMAD
NOOR
Ss. 23, 6 & 7---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 148, 149 & 364---Application for transfer of case from Anti-Terrorism Court to Court of Session, dismissal of---Evidence of complainant and prosecution witnesses not recorded to determine nature of offence---Effect---Accused and co- accused persons allegedly caused murder of three persons in front of their relatives after abducting them on gun-point---Plea of accused that present case was one of previous enmity and personal vendetta between the parties, therefore, offence alleged neither created any threat to a section of public or community nor it created any sense of fear or insecurity in the society---Application of accused under S.23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 for transfer of case from Anti-Terrorism Court to Court of Session was rejected---Validity---Alleged offence was committed on a path during day time and allegedly reckless firing was made with weapons of prohibited bore---Admittedly after submission of challan in Anti-Terrorism Court, the prosecution could not examine the ocular, circumstantial, medical and expert witnesses nor any other material was available to ascertain whether any panic, fear and insecurity had been created in the minds of people, therefore at such premature stage severity and nature of alleged offence could not be determined---Plea raised by accused might be agitated and decided after recording of evidence of complainant and atleast two eye-witnesses/star witnesses by the prosecution and thereafter the accused was at liberty to repeat the
application for transfer of case from Anti-Terrorism Court to court of plenary jurisdiction---
Application was disposed of accordingly.
2014 YLR 2676 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE MUHAMMAD SHAHBAZ Vs State
Ss. 302(b), 365-A & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6(2)(a) & 7(a)---Qatl-e-amd, kidnapping for ransom, common intention, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Both the witnesses had not only rendered discrepant statements inter se, but also made some self- contradictory depositions---Witnesses of last seen had made certain improvements in their statements, for which they were duly confronted with their previous statements under S.161, Cr.P.C.---Evidence of last seen had been fabricated by the Police so as to involve accused persons in the case, and create a linkage between them and the crime committed---
Discrepancies and self-contradictory depositions of both the prosecution witnesses, had rendered their statement worthless and incredible, which could not be given any weight---
Evidence of last seen, was the weakest type of circumstance, which could easily be manoeuvred by the prosecution, wherever direct connecting evidence against an accused, did not come in their way---Law required unimpeachable corroboration of such like evidence, but such particular piece of evidence alone was untrustworthy and unreliable---Continuous chain of events, without any breach could, establish the guilt of accused, based on circumstantial evidence, but in the present case, it appeared to be a ragged, shaken and shabby situation which had dwindled the idea of building an uninterrupted chain by the prosecution---Medical evidence hardly advanced the prosecution case in plausible terms---Prosecution, in circumstances, had failed to prove the charge against accused persons beyond reasonable shadow of doubt---Impugned judgment being unsustainable was annulled and conviction and sentence of accused persons were set aside, they were acquitted of the charge and were directed to be released, in circumstances.
2014 YLR 2534 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE ATIF ALI Vs SPECIAL JUDGE OF ATC-IV, LAHORE
Ss.302, 148 & 149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6, 7 & 23---Qatl-e-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapon, every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object---Cognizance of cases by Anti-Terrorism Court---Determining factors---Demanding Bhatta---Transfer of accused's case from Anti-Terrorism Court to court of ordinary jurisdiction---Validity---Accused demanded Bhatta from deceased and on refusal murdered his father thereby conveying message to complainant and people living in the area that if anyone refused accused's demand would suffer the fate of deceased---Occurrence was bound to spread panic and feeling of insecurity---Under S.6(k) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 demanding Bhatta was offence punishable under S.7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---
Demanding Bhatta constituted a scheduled offence which was triable by Anti-Terrorism Court constituted under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Cumulative effect of the contents of F.I.R., attending circumstances and record of case would determine whether alleged offence fell
within purview of any of the provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Act done by accused created a sense of insecurity among people and was covered by Ss.6 & 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Trial Court's order transferring accused's case to regular court having no cogent and plausible reasons, was set aside.
2014 PCrLJ 1673 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH RAZI KHAN ALMANI Vs JUDGE, ANTI- TERRORISM COURT, HYDERABAD
Ss. 302, 114, 109 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7 & 21-E--- Act of terrorism, qatl-e-amd, abetment, common intention---Remand of case---Jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court---Applicant/Investigating Officer requested for grant of further remand of accused in Police custody, but Judge Anti-Terrorism Court, instead of granting remand of accused in Police Custody, had granted remand in judicial custody for 7 days---Applicant had filed revision against said order contending that impugned order would affect the process of investigation of the case for the reason that more evidence was to be collected with the cooperation and disclosure of accused and statement of his daughter---Allegation was that court had shown special generosity to accused mainly on the reason that accused being a Sessions Judge, court had paid accused due respect, though he had not complained bodily or mental torture from the hands of Police---Impugned order, though neither could be challenged invoking revisional jurisdiction, nor jurisdiction under S.561-A, Cr.P.C., but it was an appropriate case where extraordinary jurisdiction could be invoked under Art. 199 of Constitution---High Court converted revision application as constitutional petition and held that remand could be extended, if the court was satisfied that no bodily harm had been or would be caused to accused; provided that total period of such remand would not exceed ninety days---Trial Court had failed to appreciate the request made by applicant/Investigating Officer for grant of further Police remand---Impugned remand order, granting remand of accused in judicial custody, instead of Police custody was illegal, arbitrary and against law; which would affect the smooth investigation of crime---
Impugned order was set aside, with the direction to the Trial Court to decide afresh the request of applicant on merits and in accordance with law after affording fair opportunity of hearing to both sides.
2014 PCrLJ 1783 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH VEJAY KUMAR Vs State
Ss. 6(1) & 23---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 365-A---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 435, 439 & 561-A---Qatl-e-amd and kidnapping for ransom---Act of terrorism---
Transfer of case---Minor boy of 6 - 7 years was kidnapped for ransom, his mouth was tapped and was put in jute bag, to keep him silent in order to avoid attention of people towards them, which resulted in his death and subsequently accused threw his dead body in water channel---
Application of accused for transfer of case to Court of ordinary jurisdiction was dismissed by Anti-Terrorism Court---Validity---Such barbarity had created fear, panic and sense of insecurity among people of vicinity---Act of accused persons squarely fell within the ambit of "terrorism" attracting jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court in terms of S.6(1) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---
Trial Court had correctly assumed jurisdiction declining transfer of case to Court of ordinary jurisdiction---Order passed by Trial Court was not perverse, nor suffering from any infirmity and it did not require interference by High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Ss. 435 & 439, Cr.P.C. or inherent power under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C., which could only be invoked in exceptional cased of extraordinary nature and not in each and every case---Revision was dismissed in circumstances.
2014 PLD 644 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE MUHAMMAD YOUSAF Vs State
Preamble, Third Sched., Ss.1, 6, 7, 23 & 34---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Transfer of case from Anti-Terrorism Court to regular court---Scope of S.23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Anti-Terrorism Court dismissed applications of accused involved in different offences namely murder by firing, acid throwing and injury caused by firing in mosque, for transfer of their cases to regular courts---Validity---Purpose of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was to prevent terrorism, sectarian violence and conducting speedy trial of heinous offences---In order to decide whether an offence was triable under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 or not, the courts had to see whether the act had tendency to create sense of fear and insecurity in the mind of people or a section of society---Such act might not necessarily have taken place within the view of general public---Schedule annexed to a statute was as important as the statute itself---Schedule could be used to construe the provisions of the body of the Act---Third Schedule to the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 had to be given its due importance and, first three paragraphs of the same were general in nature while the fourth paragraph specifically described offences---In order to bring an offence within ambit of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and the jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court, nexus of such offence with S.6 of the Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997 was a pre-requisite---Paragraph 4 of the Schedule to the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 categorically mentioned the offences which would be tried only by the Anti-Terrorism Court---Offences in question were within the purview/ambit of the paragraph 4 of the Third Schedule to the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and were triable by the Anti-Terrorism Court---
Petitions were dismissed.
2014 PLD 639 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE KHURRAM WAHEED Vs State
Ss. 6(1), Cls. (b) & (k), 7 & 23---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.384, 506 & 337-H(2)---Extortion, criminal intimidation, rash and negligent act endangering human life---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Transfer of case from Anti-Terrorism Court to regular court---
Community---Connotations---Act of accused persons though was (directed) against an individual yet its impact had to be considered with surrounding circumstances---Complainant was member of business community running business in a busy area---Ransom was demanded in such a way by accused persons and the manner in which complainant was directed to proceed to a Chowk coupled with firing shots at a public place and eight days time (dead line) for arrangement of ransom, might have spread sense of terror, fear and insecurity in the vicinity complainant was running business---Complainant being member of a particular
community (business community), prosecution case fell within ambit of Cls.(b) and (k) of S.6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and the alleged offence was liable to be punished under S.7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---In view of surge in heinous crimes, outlaws perpetrating such crimes had to be dealt with drastically---Constitutional petition was dismissed.
2014 PLD 809 SUPREME-COURT SHAHID ZAFAR Vs State
Ss. 302(b) & 34--- Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6(1)(b) & 7(a)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 345---Qatl-e-amd, common intention, act of terrorism---Compromise---
Reappraisal of evidence---Murder of unarmed person by members of law enforcement agency-- -Grievous and heinous crime---Sense of fear or insecurity in the public---Accused and co- accused persons were members of a law enforcement agency, and they had a quarrel with the deceased at a park---Deceased was surrounded by accused and co-accused, whereafter one of the co-accused shouted "maromaro", as a result of which the accused fired at the deceased---
Deceased pleaded to be taken to hospital, but accused and co-accused did not do the same, despite presence of an official vehicle at the spot---Deceased consequently bled to death---
Accused deliberately and wilfully shot the deceased at the instigation of the co-accused persons and they let him bleed to death without offering him any assistance---Such sequence of events abundantly displayed the common intention and object of the accused and co-accused persons- --Gruesome murder of deceased at the hands of members of law enforcement agency certainly created a sense of terror, insecurity and panic in the minds and hearts of those who witnessed the scene and the entire public which saw the video of the incident---Accused had compromised with legal heirs of deceased but offence committed by him and co-accused persons under S.7(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was not compoundable---Supreme Court however observed that following the ratio in the case of Muhammad Nawaz v. The State (PLD 2014 SC 383), wherein sentence of death imposed upon convict under S.7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was reduced to imprisonment for life in the presence of a compromise, the death sentence awarded to present accused should also be reduced to imprisonment for life---
Sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to co-accused persons was maintained---Appeal was disposed of accordingly.
2014 PLD 809 SUPREME-COURT SHAHID ZAFAR Vs State
S. 345---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302(b)---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6(1)(b) & 7(a)---Compounding of offence---Fasad-fil-Arz---Murder of unarmed person by members of law enforcement agency---Victim begging for life and bleeding to death---Cruel and gruesome murder---Such murder would amount to Fasad-fil-Arz within the meaning of S.311, P.P.C. hence there could be no question of acceptance of any compromise between the parties---Appeal was disposed of accordingly.
2014 MLD 1773 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH MUMTAZ Vs State
Ss.6(2)(m) & 7(h)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.561-A---Serious coercion or intimidation of a public servant in order to force him to discharge or to refrain from discharging his lawful duties---Sentence, suspension of---Unexplained delay in registration of F.I.R.---
Accused were convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for five years---Validity---Delay of five days in registration of F.I.R., was not explained, whereas Presiding Officer, who was complainant in the case, did not report the matter to appropriate forum in accordance with law on the date of alleged incident---Complainant stated in his evidence that he did not give name of accused persons at the time of registration of F.I.R., nor he could identify accused produced in court to be the persons who committed alleged offence---No incriminating material was recovered from accused nor any other evidence had been produced by prosecution which could directly connect accused with alleged offence---Trial Court had convicted accused under Ss. 6(2)(m) & h) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, without even recording any finding as to whether alleged offence fell within the definition of terrorism or not---Accused persons had no previous criminal record and they had made out a case for their release on bail by suspending sentence awarded to them during pendency of appeal---Bail was allowed in circumstances.
2014 PCrLJ 1062 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE YOUNAS Vs State
Ss. 6(1)(b) & (c)---"Terrorism", meaning of---Scope---For an act to fall within the definition of "terrorism", nexus of the actions of the wrongdoer must be to terrorize the public in general and to spread the sense of fear and insecurity in the particular community or sect of people.
2014 PCrLJ 1062 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE YOUNAS Vs State
Ss. 6(2)(m), (n) & 23---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---"Terrorism", meaning of---Scope---Exchange of fire with police contingent---Doubts regarding element of serious violence against police---Accused persons, 17 in number, allegedly made indiscriminate firing upon a police contingent, snatched an official rifle and ammunition, and used force and coercion to rescue one of the accused from the police---Despite the fact that firing upon police contingent was made by 17 persons, no police official received a single scratch---None of the accused received any fire shot injury at the hands of police---Uniform of none of the police officials was torn---In presence of a reasonable police contingent, it was not comprehendible as to how official arm and ammunition was snatched and as to how accused persons managed to rescue one of theirs from the police---Element of involvement of serious violence against police was lacking in such circumstances---Provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, were not applicable in the present case---Case of accused persons was ordered to be transferred from Anti- Terrorism Court to the court of plenary jurisdiction---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.
2013 PCrLJ 1259 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH QAISER BALOCH Vs State
Ss. 23 & 6(n)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 353, 186, 34---Application for transfer of case from Anti-Terrorism Court to Sessions Court, dismissal of---Act of terrorism---Serious violence against members of the police force---Scope---Accused persons had fired upon a police party with automatic weapons in order to deter them from discharging their official duty---Accused persons submitted an application under S.23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 before the Anti- Terrorism Court for transfer of case to an ordinary court, however the same was rejected on the basis that it was not essential that police party received injuries during the occurrence but it was enough that they were intimidated from doing their public duty and were refrained from discharging their lawful duties---Validity---Record showed that accused persons had fired upon the police party and deterred them from discharging their official duties---Empties of automatic weapons used by accused persons were recovered from the place of occurrence---Act of accused clearly showed serious violence against members of police force and created terror in the area---Offence clearly fell under S.6(n) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Anti-Terrorism Court had rightly rejected application of accused persons for transfer of case---Revision petition was dismissed accordingly.
2013 PCrLJ 1720 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH BISMILLAH KHAN Vs State
S. 6---Act of terrorism, determination of---Scope---Under S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, "terrorism" was determined from the criminal act designed to create a sense of fear or insecurity in the minds of the general public, disturbing even tempo of life and tranquillity of society.
2013 PCrLJ 1720 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH BISMILLAH KHAN Vs State
Ss. 23 & 6(2)(e)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 365-A---Transfer of case from Anti-Terrorism Court to Court of Session---Act of terrorism---Scope---Business dealing between the parties---
Kidnapping for payment of a due amount---Accused persons were alleged to have kidnapped the alleged abductee for ransom---Alleged abductee was later recovered by the police---Perusal of F.I.R., statement of alleged abductee under S.161, Cr.P.C. and other material collected during investigation showed that there was a business dealing between the parties, and cheques were issued by the complainant party, which got dishonoured on presentation, therefore, ingredients of S.365-A, P.P.C. were not satisfied from the material collected during investigation---Ordinary crimes like the present one, were not to be tried under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Anti- Terrorism Court, while dismissing application of accused persons for transfer of case, itself observed that three cheques had been issued by the alleged abductee---Anti-Terrorism Court had no jurisdiction to try the present case---Revision application was allowed with a direction to Anti-Terrorism Court to transfer the case to the Court of Session.
2013 PCrLJ 603 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE GHULAM FAREED Vs State
Ss. 6, 7(a) & 7(c)---Act of terrorism---Determination---Motive---Alleged motive behind occurrence was suspicion by co-accused that paternal uncle of deceased had illicit relations with wife of co-accused---Effect---Application of S. 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, primarily required spread of sense of insecurity and fear in common mind and the same was lacking---
Occurrence neither reflected any act of terrorism nor it was sectarian matter and occurrence was result of previous enmity between the parties---Accused was wrongly convicted under S. 7(a) & (c) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
2013 YLR 1135 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH GHULAM SARWAR Vs State
Ss.6, 7 & 23---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 386, 387, 506(2), 504 & 337-H(2)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), 5.526---Act of terrorism, extortion by putting a person to fear of death, or of grievous hurt in order to commit extortion, criminal intimidation and rash and negligent act---Application for transfer of case to .regular court---Complainant had alleged in F.I.R. that two months prior to the incident, accused had demanded `Bhatta' from him, but no F.I.R. of the incident was lodged---F.I.R. and other material collected during investigation revealed that no offence triable under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was made out, for the reason that element of striking of terror, or creation sense of fear and insecurity in the people, or any section of the people was made out---Ingredients of extortion of money as defined in S.6(2)(k) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, were not made out from the fact of the case---Anti-Terrorism Court, therefore, had no jurisdiction to try the case---Impugned order was suffering from illegality, and was not sustainable under the law--Application was allowed by the High Court with direction to the Trial Court to transfer the case to the Court of Session, having jurisdiction in the matter, in circumstances.
2013 MLD 1469 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH MUHAMMAD SHOAIB Vs State
Ss. 6(2)(b)(k) & 7(c)(h)---Conviction in absentia---Accused persons against whom conviction had been awarded in absentia; and accused who had been shown absconder, and whose case had been kept on dormant, were not present before the Trial Court---No opportunity whatsoever to defend their case on merits was provided to them---Impugned judgment also did not suggest that accused had deliberately avoided the process of the court, or remained wilfully absent from the court---Conviction awarded to accused persons in absentia, were set aside, and case was remanded to the Trial Court to decide the same after providing them proper opportunity of being heard---Accused persons would surrender before the Trial Court and would attend the court on each and every date---During the trial accused persons would remain on bail; if they would misuse the concession of bail, Trial Court would be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
2013 MLD 1588 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH SHAHRUKH JATOI Vs State
S. 6---Terrorism---Scope---Whether particular act was act of terrorism or not, the motivation, object, design and purpose behind the said act was to be seen and it was also to be seen as to whether the said act had created sense of fear and insecurity in the public or in section of the public or community or in any sect and where action resulted in striking terror or creating fear, panic, sensation, helplessness and sense of insecurity among the people in particular area it amounted to "terror" and such action fell within the ambit of S.6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and shall be triable by Special Court constituted for such purpose.
2013 MLD 1588 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH SHAHRUKH JATOI Vs State
Ss. 23, 6, 7 & 8---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 354, 109, 216 & 34---Act of terrorism, qatl- e-amd, assault to woman with intent to outrage her modesty, abetment, harbouring offender and common intention---Transfer of case from Anti-Terrorism Court to the court of ordinary jurisdiction---Application for transfer of case of the accused was dismissed by the Special Court- --Validity---Offence was committed on the road and by such act of the accused, young boy was shot dead by automatic weapon over petty matter---Act of accused was designed to create sense of fear and insecurity and helplessness in the minds of general public disturbing the tempo of the life and tranquility of the society and provisions of S.6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, were attracted and impact of such act terrorized society at large by creating panic and fear in their minds---Presence of personal enmity would not exclude the jurisdiction of Anti- Terrorism Court and neither motive nor intent for commission of offence was relevant for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction on the Anti-Terrorism Court---Act of accused created sense of helplessness and insecurity amongst the people of area where offence was committed and did destabilize the public at large---Present case would fall within the jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court---Order of the Trial Court did not suffer from any material irregularity or illegality and the same was maintained.
2013 YLR 2657 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH ADAM HUSSAIN Vs State
Ss.6 & 7(i)---Act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Exonerating by complainant---Benefit of doubt---Complainant had filed suit for Khula and it was alleged that on the day of occurrence her husband and others attempted on complainant to murder her in court premises---Trial Court convicted accused under S. 7(i) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and sentenced him to five years imprisonment while husband of complainant and another co-accused were acquitted---
Validity---Prosecution could not establish its case against accused without reasonable doubt---
Contradictory evidence of prosecution witnesses and deposition of complainant exonerating accused from alleged crime had made prosecution case doubtful, benefit of which was required to be extended to accused---Trial Court wrongfully declined benefit of doubt to accused---While awarding sentence to accused under S. 7(i) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, Trial Court did not record any finding to the effect that alleged act of accused was an act of terrorism which created terror and sense of insecurity in public-at-large---Judgment passed by Trial Court was
silent about application of S. 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, whereas nothing had been observed by Trial Court about gravity of alleged offence---High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court and he was acquitted of the charge--Appeal was allowed in circumstances.
2013 PCrLJ 1808 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH ISHAQ ALI Vs State
S. 6---Act of terrorism, determination of---Perusal of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 revealed that Anti-Terrorism Court had the jurisdiction to try the case, if an offence was made out with an intention to strike terror in the public or in a section of public---Act should be designed to create a sense of fear and insecurity in the minds of the general public---For determining whether an action fell under the ambit of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, the averments made in the F.I.R. and allegations raised in such regard were of prime importance---While examining such offence it was to be seen that the offence had a nexus with the object of the Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997 and was squarely covered under Ss. 6, 7 & 8 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---
Case was not triable by the Anti-Terrorism Court when any of the condition laid down in section 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 were not fulfilled.
2013 PCrLJ 1808 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH ISHAQ AL Vs State
Ss. 6(i) & 23---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 393 & 34---Qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit robbery, common intention---Act of terrorism, determination of---Transfer of case from Anti- Terrorism Court to Sessions Court---According to F.I.R. accused persons came to a shop with the intention to commit robbery, and after failing they started firing at the deceased persons---
Case was transferred from Anti-Terrorism Court to Sessions Court on an application filed by accused persons under S.23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Validity---For determining whether an action fell under the ambit of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, the averments made in the F.I.R. and allegations raised in such regard were of prime importance---F.I.R. categorically stated that accused persons stopped at the front of the shop with an intention to commit robbery and when they were stopped, they started firing upon the deceased persons---Present case pertained to robbery with murder committed for private gains and offence was not committed with the design or purpose as contemplated under any of the provisions of S.6 of Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997---Case had been rightly transferred from Anti-Terrorism Court to Sessions Court---Revision application was dismissed accordingly.
2013 PLD 551 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH MUHAMMAD YAKOOB GOPANG vs PRESIDING OFFICER, HYDERABAD
S. 561-A---
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.193, 384, 109 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997),
S.6(2)(k)---
False evidence, extortion, abetment, common intention---Quashing of proceedings,
application for---Trial Court had observed in its judgment that applicant/complainant and Mashir had given false statements before the court and notices under S.193, P.P.C. were ordered to be issued against them---Plea of the applicant was that Mashir had not filed separate reply to notice under S.193, P.P.C., but he adopted the reply submitted by him, despite the fact that notice issued against the Mashir had been withdrawn, while notice against him was still pending---Applicant had contended that he was being insisted upon for personal appearance, which was discrimination on the part of the Trial Court---Validity---No previous statement of the applicant was recorded on oath, in such circumstances, there was nothing before the Trial Court which constituted an offence of perjury under S.193, P.P.C., against the applicant---Notice issued to applicant/complainant, therefore, amounted to abuse of process of court, which could not be allowed as High Court had powers under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process of court or to secure ends of justice---Show-cause notice under S.193, P.P.C., issued against applicant, and proceedings emanating therefrom were quashed, in circumstances.
2013 MLD 1315 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH GHULAM RASOOL alias BHORO Vs State
Ss. 302, 324, 337-H(2) & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, causing hurt by rash or negligent act, act of terrorism, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Complainant had clearly stated that accused present in the court was not the same---Prosecution witness had stated that S.H.O. had fired from his Kalashnikov at the deceased, who died at the spot---Accused did not make any fire at the time of incident---Another prosecution witness had also not implicated accused in the commission of the offence---Remaining evidence was formal in nature and nothing incriminating was recovered from the possession of accused---Eye-witnesses of the incident had not implicated accused in the commission of the offence---Trial Court had failed to appreciate the evidence in accordance with the principle of law---Burden to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt rested on the prosecution, but it had failed to discharge the same---Prosecution having failed to establish its case against accused, conviction and sentence awarded to them by the Trial Court, was set aside and they were acquitted and released, in circumstances.
2013 PCrLJ 1150 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Cour EHSANULLAH Vs State
Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13---Qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, common intention, act of terrorism, possessing unlicensed weapon---Appreciation of evidence---Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 which was a special law, would override the provisions of general law---Offence of murder had been provided in the schedule of said special law, which was punishable with death---Fire shots received by the deceased and injured, were from a high velocity fire-arm and not from a low velocity gun, such as a Repeater---Statements of the prosecution witnesses, the recoveries, the motive and other facts of the murder of deceased and the injuries, sustained by other four
persons, had proved case against accused to the hilt---Criminal case under S.13 of Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 was also proved against accused, his conviction and sentence was upheld and murder reference made by the Trial Court to his extent was answered in affirmative---Benefit of doubt was extended to co-accused and their sentence was set aside and they would be released.
2013 YLR 1215 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH KOURO Vs State
Ss. 302, 324, 353 & 427---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13(d)---Qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, possession of illegal weapons, acts of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Police encounter---Consistent witness statements---Medical evidence corroborating ocular version---Effect---Accused persons, who belonged to a group of dacoits, attacked the police party during an encounter, which resulted in death of three police officials and also caused injuries to four others---All witnesses supported the prosecution case and reiterated their earlier statements recorded during investigation---No material discrepancy was found in statements of witnesses, which could be termed as material contradiction---Ocular version was substantiated by natural and credible witnesses, including injured witnesses/ police-officials---
Arrest of accused persons at the place of occurrence along with sophisticated weapons was proved through trust-worthy evidence--- Prosecution witnesses/police-officials were cross- examined at length, but defence failed to shake their credibility and veracity---Although one co- accused was acquitted by Trial Court on basis of his plea of alibi, but present accused persons never claimed/agitated such defence plea---Acquitted co-accused had not examined any witness in his defence nor produced any document to substantiate his plea of alibi, therefore, prosecution case could not be made doubtful on basis of acquittal of said co-accused---
Although private witnesses were not arranged, but in circumstances of the occurrence, it was neither practical nor advisable to arrange private witnesses as it would have amounted to putting lives of private persons in danger---Medical evidence was not in contradiction with ocular evidence---Prosecution successfully proved the charge against accused persons through an unbroken chain of ocular, medical and circumstantial evidence---High Court dismissed appeal of accused persons, and issued show-cause notice to the acquitted co-accused to show as to why judgment of acquittal in his favour should not be set-aside---Case was remanded to the Trial Court to consider acquittal of co-accused.
2013 PLD 66 ISLAMABA Gen. (R) PERVEZ MUSHARRAF Vs State
S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 344/34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997). Ss. 6(1)(b), 6(2)(b), (g), (i), (m) & 7---Wrongful confinement for ten or more days, common intention, acts of terrorism---Pre-arrest bail, cancellation of---Confinement of Judges of superior Courts---
Allegation against the accused, who was a former President of Pakistan and Chief of Army Staff,
was that he suspended the Chief Justice of Pakistan and 60 other Judges of superior Courts from their positions and placed them under house arrest for a period of five and half months due to which they were unable to perform their judicial functions---Perusal of F.I.R. clearly suggested that police did not insert the sections of relevant law which were made out from the contents of the F.I.R.---Confining Judges of Superior Courts and stopping them from performance of their duties was an act of terrorism---Prima facie offence under S.7 of Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997 was attracted to the present case---Police was bound under the law to insert the sections of relevant law which contents of F.I.R. suggested---According to investigating officer accused did not join the investigation, rather a telephonic message was conveyed (by him) that material would be provided to court---Such act of accused was defiance of court order and misuse of concession of bail---Accused failed to point out any mala fide on part of police or complainant---Offence alleged fell within the prohibitory clause of S.497(1), Cr.P.C---Accused was also a proclaimed offender and as such could not claim his normal rights-- -Accused was specifically nominated in the F.I.R. and was also required for further investigation---Act of accused through which Judges of Superior Court(s) were confined to their residencies shocked the entire nation more particularly community of lawyers--- Such act of accused spread fear in the society, insecurity amongst judicial officers, alarm in the lawyers community and terror throughout the country---Pre-arrest bail of accused was declined accordingly.
2013 PLD 66 ISLAMABAD Gen. (R) PERVEZ MUSHARRAF Vs State
Ss. 6(1)(b), 6(2)(b), (g), (i), (m) & 7---Act of terrorism---Scope---Confining Judges of Superior Courts and stopping them from performance of their duties---Such an act was an act of terrorism as defined by Ss.6(1)(b), 6(2)(b), (g), (i) & (m).
2013 YLR 1732 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH AMEER BUX alias GHOUS BUX alias GHOUSO BROHI alias SUDHIR BROHI Vs State
Ss.6(2)(e) & 7(e)
---Kidnapping for ransom--- Appreciation of evidence---Identification of accused
in court---Effect---
Accused was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life for kidnapping
for ransom---Validity---Accused was identified in court, therefore, his presence at place of occurrence and kidnapping abductee for ransom could not be disputed---Evidence of payment of ransom through evidence of prosecution witness stood proved beyond any shadow of doubt- --Despite lengthy cross-examination prosecution witness could not be shattered by defence---
Trial Court had rightly believed prosecution evidence, which was confidence-inspiring---High Court declined to disagree with appreciation of evidence by Trial Court---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
2013 MLD 1072 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH State Vs WAQAR
Ss. 6(2)(k) & 7(h)---Extortion of money (bhatta)---Appreciation of evidence---Accused was alleged to have demanded bhatta from the complainant---Accused was arrested when he came to the house of complainant to collect the bhatta amount---Trial Court convicted and sentenced accused under Ss. 6(2)(k) & 7(h) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Validity---Complainant was not acquainted with the accused, therefore, it could not be said that accused had come to the house of complainant for a social visit---Record showed that there was no enmity between the complainant and accused---Complainant clearly deposed that accused was constantly calling him and arranged a date and time to collect the bhatta amount from house of complainant---
Accused went to the house of complainant on the specific date and time to collect the bhatta amount, as there was no other purpose or reason available with the accused to visit the house of complainant---Due to intervention of people of the locality accused did not succeed in getting the bhatta amount and was apprehended from the spot---Appeal of accused was dismissed in circumstances.
2013 MLD 1469 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH MUHAMMAD SHOAIB Vs State
Ss. 6(2)(b)(k), 7(c)(h), 19(12) & 25---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.9 & 10---Act of terrorism---
Conviction in absentia---Options for accused---Accused had two options in law in case of conviction recorded in absentia; firstly, to approach the Trial Court within the stipulated period with a request to set aside his conviction recorded in absentia, in terms of S.19(12) of the Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997 by showing that he did not abscond deliberately from the court during the trial and secondly to surrender before High Court by filing an appeal under S.25 of the Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997 with a prayer to set aside the conviction awarded in absentia; and to acquit him on merit or to remand the matter to the Trial Court for fresh trial by setting aside impugned judgment.
2013 YLR 92 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE PERVAIZ IQBAL SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT NO.III
Ss. 6, 7 & 23---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324/ 148/ 149/ 427/ 337-A(i)/ 337-F(iii)/ 337-L(2)---
Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, rioting with deadly weapons, causing hurts---Constitutional petition---"Act of terrorism", determination of---Nexus had to be shown between the act done and the objective or design by which the offence had been committed, to formulate an opinion whether or not such offence could be termed an act of terrorism---In the absence of such linkage it could not be held that the offence committed in the background of personal enmity or vendatta, transmitting a wave of terror or fright or horror, was necessarily an act of terrorism---Complainant and his co-witnesses had categorically stated during investigation that the accused mentioned in the F.I.R. had a personal motive and grudge to commit the offence, therefore the crime committed by them, regardless its repercussions, could not be dubbed an "act of terrorism"---Impugned order passed by Anti- Terrorism Court transferring the case to the court of ordinary jurisdiction on the application of
accused moved under S.23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was well-reasoned and based on relevant law---Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine accordingly.
2013 PCrLJ 526 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH EIDAL KHAN METLO Vs IMAM ALI alias BALI
Ss. 6, 7 & 23--- Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/324/353/ 148/149---Anti-Terrorism Court, jurisdiction of---Scope---Attack on a police picket located in a remote area whether an "act of terror"---Scope---Accused persons had allegedly made an assault on a police picket, which resulted in the death of a police official---Police picket was situated in a remote area with no public in its vicinity---Anti-Terrorism Court allowed application of accused under S.23 of Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997 and transferred the case to the Court of Session on the basis that complainant and eye-witnesses had not mentioned that the firing by accused persons created harassment, fear, terror and insecurity in the minds of the public---Legality---While deciding applicability of Ss.6 & 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, the phrase 'action' carried more weight than the phrase "designed to"---Place of incident, in the present case, was a police picket which was normally established in an area to ensure safety and security of the people of the area---
"Action" i.e. manner of offence, in the present case, was an attack upon the police picket---Such action leads to an alarming situation and impression upon the people that, if police officials and police posts were not safe then what impact would it have on them---Such actions showed that there was lawlessness and the public at large felt serious effects of insecurity, lawlessness and uncertainty as a result---Present case was not one of private vendetta and accused persons deliberately and intentionally assaulted the police picket with deadly weapons---"Action", taken by the accused persons in the present case, could not be presumed to have remained unnoticed by the locality nor could it be said to be an ordinary offence---Present case was a case of terrorism within the jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court---Impugned order of Anti- Terrorism Court was illegal and not maintainable---Revision application was allowed accordingly.
2013 PCrLJ 429 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH NIAZ AHMED Vs State
Ss. 6, 7 & 23---Application for transfer of case, dismissal of---Terrorism, act of---Proof--Duty of police---Scope---F.I.R. was registered against the accused (Station House Officer) on the allegation that he had illegally detained a person at a private place and at the time of recovery proceedings he used weapons against the raiding Magistrate---Accused was aggrieved of cognizance taken by Anti-Terrorism Court and sought transfer of the same to court of ordinary jurisdiction---Validity---Accused in violation of law kept detenues in illegal custody at private place though he was under legal obligation to act strictly in accordance with law, which prima facie proved that he acted contrary to law hence committed offence of malfeasance by detaining private person in his custody---Accused also caused serious deterrence in legal duty of Magistrate by making direct firing and snatched detenues from the custody of Magistrate---
Manner of offences committed by accused was sufficient to hold that prima facie he was guilty of committing serious offence of terrorism---Police officers were always supposed to act in aid
of innocence as powers, jurisdiction and authority vested in them was never meant to exploit the same and they had been entrusted sacred duty of creating a sense of security and peace among individuals while creating a sense of terror and fear among criminals---Accused failed to make out a case where interference of High Court was required and he even failed to point out any illegality in the orders passed by Trial Court, which were otherwise legal, well justified and maintained under law--- Application for transfer of case was dismissed in circumstances.
2013 YLR 92 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE PERVAIZ IQBAL Vs SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT NO.III
Ss. 6 & 7---"Act of terrorism"---Determination---Principles---Nexus has to be shown between the act done and the objective or design by which the offence was committed, to formulate an opinion whether or not such offence could be termed an "act of terrorism"---In the absence of such linkage it cannot be held that the offence committed in the background of personal enmity or vendatta, transmitting a wave of terror or fright or horror, was necessarily an act of terrorism.
2013 YLR 92 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE PERVAIZ IQBAL Vs SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT NO.III
S.6---Terrorism---Components and constituents of terrorism detailed. The 'purpose', the motivation, the 'actus reus' and the 'mens rea' constitute the components of terrorism or an act of terrorism. An action designed to coerce and intimidate or overawe the government or the public or section of public or community or sect or, if such an action is designed to create a sense of fear or insecurity in society in the backdrop of religious, sectarian or ethnic cause, shall constitute an act of terrorism or a terrorist act. To create fear or insecurity in the society through a crime is not by itself terrorism unless the motive or the design or the actus reus or mens rea pre-exists for creating such fear or insecurity in the society. A private crime resulting into fear or insecurity as a by-product, a fall out or an unintended consequence of fright etc. cannot be termed as an act of terrorism. Mere gravity, heinousness, gruesomeness or shocking nature of any offence, committed in pursuance of personal enmity or in settlement of personal vendetta is not by itself sufficient to brand such crime as a terrorist act or an act of terrorism.
2013 YLR 632 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH MUHAMMAD AMEEN Vs GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Home Secretary, Karachi
Ss. 384/ 386/ 506/ 511/ 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6(1), 6(2)(k) &7---
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Extortion, extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt, criminal intimidation, common intention, demand of extortion money (bhatta)---Petition for quashing of F.I.R. and transfer of case from Anti-
Terrorism Court, dismissal of---Allegation against accused persons was that on several occasions they entered a factory and demanded extortion money (bhatta) from its owner; that they threatened to commit murder and set the factory on fire, and that they locked the factory by ousting its workers---Contentions of accused persons were that they were members of a labour union and had been implicated in the case due to enmity, and that offence alleged did not fall within the ambit of S. 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, therefore it should be transferred to an ordinary court---Validity---Statements of witnesses under S.161, Cr.P.C. fully corroborated the version in the F.I.R.---Statements of prosecution witnesses under S. 164, Cr.P.C. fully supported the main allegation regarding demand of extortion money (bhatta) and consequences in case of non-compliance---F.I.R. reflected that accused persons duly armed with weapons entered into the factory premises and demanded extortion money on several occasions and also locked the factory by ousting its workers, which linked with the definition of terrorism provided in Ss. 6(1) and 6(2)(k) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Acts alleged against accused persons clearly created sense of fear or insecurity in the society---Accused persons had failed to establish any previous enmity or private vendetta for implicating them in the present case---Neither any application under S. 23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 had been moved for transfer of case to an ordinary court nor any application under S. 249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C. for quashment of proceedings, instead accused persons had approached the High Court directly---
Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
2013 PCrLJ 1880 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE SAIF ULLAH SALEEM Vs State
Sched, Ss. 6, 7 & 23---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 336-B & 337-F(i)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Transfer of case from Anti-Terrorism Court to the court of ordinary jurisdiction---Application for transfer of case of the petitioners-accused was dismissed by the Special Court---Validity---Offences mentioned in the Schedule to Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997 should have nexus with the objects mentioned in Ss. 6 and 7 of the Act---
Nothing had been brought on record to show that the occurrence created terror, panic or sense of insecurity among people and the society---Even in F.I.R., got registered by the complainant, no allegation of creating terror was levelled---Motive for the occurrence was enmity inter-se the parties and for that reason, the application of S.7 of the Act which primarily required the spread of sense of insecurity and fear in common mind was lacking---Occurrence took place in a room of a hotel which was not a public place and the element of striking terror or creating sense of fear in the people or any section of the people was not made discernible in the F.I.R.---
Case registered against the petitioners-accused was triable by the court of ordinary jurisdiction- --Constitutional petition was allowed and S.7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was ordered to be deleted and petition moved under S.23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was accepted---Proceedings of the trial of the case were ordered to be transferred to the court of ordinary jurisdiction.
2012 YLR 2942 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH JEHANGIR Vs State
S.497(2)---Penal Code MAT of 1860), Ss. 302/ 324/ 353/ 147/ 148/ 149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7--- Qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, acts of terrorism---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Accused and. co-accused persons were alleged to have fired at a police party which resulted in the death of a police official---Accused was implicated in the case on the basis of identification parade and recovery of weapon---Name of accused did not transpire in the F.I.R.-Identification parade was delayed by about 6 days, which had not been accounted for by the prosecution---During identification parade accused raised the objection that witnesses had seen him many times at the police station during his remand---Such objection of accused was noticed by the Magistrate, therefore, possibility of accused having been shown to the prosecution witnesses before conducting of identification parade could not be ruled out---Weapon was allegedly recovered from accused after about 3 months of the incident and after 7 days of his arrest on his pointation---Recovery of weapon from accused was also doubtful because the F.I.R. showed that all accused persons were armed with Kalashnikovs but weapon allegedly recovered from accused was a pistol- -Challan had been submitted against accused and he was no more required for further investigation---Case against accused required further inquiry and he was allowed bail accordingly.
2012 PLD 469 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH HAZOOR BUX Vs State
Ss. 6 & 23---Transfer of case sought from Anti-Terrorism court to ordinary court---Accused and co-accused (applicants) were alleged to have trespassed into the complainant's house in order to steal and on facing resistance they killed the complainant's father and injured his brother---
Application under S.23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 for transfer of case from Anti-Terrorism Court to ordinary court was dismissed by the Trial Court with the observation that accused persons committed brutal murder which created panic and insecurity in the minds of the people of the vicinity---Validity---Allegation in the F.I.R. was that three persons trespassed into the house of the complainant party in the middle of the night and their ostensible intention was to steal---Accused and co-accused faced resistance which led to firing---No allegation of firing in the air or at the villagers, so as to terrorize them or the community, was put forward---No previous acquaintance existed between the accused persons and the complainant---Present case was simple case of intended theft where one thing led to another and two persons got murdered---No evidence was brought forward to satisfy the requirements of S.6(b) of Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997---Section 6(c) of the Act was not attracted in the present case---Revision application was allowed, impugned order of Trial Court was set-aside and application under S.23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was allowed with directions to the Trial court to transfer the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, who might either himself proceed with the case or might transfer it to any Additional Session Judge competent to try the offence.
2012 PCrLJ 1438 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH MUHAMMAD AYOOB Vs
State
Ss. 4 & 5---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7(b)---Attempt to cause explosion, making or possessing explosive, and act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Accused was already in custody since 3rd October, 2002 and alleged arms and ammunition were said to have been produced by him after a delay of 12 days which also made the recovery highly doubtful---
Accused had juxtaposed his case in the Trial Court and was able to prove the mala fides of the Police that just to teach lesson to the family, both the brothers were booked in the false case, and showed the gravity of the crime foisted upon them; the hand grenade, fuses of rocket launcher and KK with 20 live bullets by arresting and showing them terrorists---Father of accused succeeded in getting the possession of his plot from Police forgetting that it was a Police Station and ordinary citizens in such circumstances had to face the consequences---Arms and ammunition, were not sealed at the spot and Police produced the property in the Trial Court in unsealed condition---Investigating Officer had also admitted in cross-examination that the K.K. was without number, in such circumstances, besides the other contradictions that the complainant had mentioned in the F.I.R. and the memo of seizure that the arms were secured from the open plot in front of the house of accused, but mashirs deposed otherwise, which spoiled the case of the prosecution---Where the prosecution itself had failed to prove its case, impugned judgment resulting in 7/8 years' R.I. for accused, was sheer mockery and amounting to slaughtering the innocent citizens---Prosecution having failed to prove its case, against accused, impugned judgment was set aside, accused was acquitted and released, in circumstances.
2012 YLR 1938 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE ASRAR AHMED KHAN Vs SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT, FAISALABAD
Ss. 23, 6, 7 & 8---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.283/290/291/324/353/435/506/ 186/148/149---
Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Obstruction in public way, public nuisance, nuisance after injunction to discontinue, attempt to commit Qatl-e-amd, assault or criminal force, mischief by fire or explosive substance, criminal intimidation, obstruction public servant in discharge of public functions, rioting with deadly weapon and unlawful assembly---Constitutional petition---
Transfer of case to regular court---Anti-Terrorism Court vide impugned order had refused to transfer the case to regular court---Validity---Accused petitioner and other accused persons while armed with fire-arms had allegedly not only blocked a chowk, but had also made firing and pelted stones on police employees---Astonishingly, none of the police officials or any other member of the District Administration, present at the place of occurrence, had received a single injury---Investigating Officer could not collect any crime empty from the spot---Ten or eleven unknown persons mentioned by complainant as accused had not been brought as accused in the case till date---Sectarian hatred falling within the ambit of S.8(d)(i) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was not involved in the case of accused and only terrorist activity had been alleged against the persons mentioned in the crime report---Facts of the case in stricto sensu did not
attract the provisions of any section of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, including S.6 thereof---
Anti-Terrorism Court, therefore, was not justified in rejecting the application of accused moved under S.23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, especially when while disposing of the bail petition of accused it had been observed that according to the Investigating Officer the case seemed to be doubtful---Impugned order was, consequently, set aside with the direction to Anti-Terrorism Court to transfer the case to ordinary court for its trial afresh---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.
2012 PCrLJ 1342 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SIND BAKSHOO Vs State
Ss. 6, 7 & 8---"Terrorism"---Essential ingredients---In order to determine as to whether an offence would fall within the ambit under S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, it would be essential to have a glance over the allegations made in the F.I.R., record of the case and surrounding circumstances; it was also necessary to examine whether the ingredients of alleged offence had any nexus with the object of the case as contemplated under Ss.6, 7 & 8, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Whether a particular act was an act of terrorism or not, the motivation, object, design or purpose behind said act, and whether the said act had created a sense of fear and insecurity in the public, or any section of public or community or in any sect was to be seen---Striking of terror was sine qua non for the application of the provisions as contained in S.6 of Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997, which could not be determined without examining the nature, gravity and heinousness of the alleged offence.
2012 YLR 1191 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE Vs State
S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324/ 341/ 353/ 337-A(i)/ 435/ 440/ 147/ 148/149/109-- -Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, wrongful restraint, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, shajjah-i- khafifah, mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to cause damage, mischief committed after preparation made for causing death or hurt, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, acts of terrorism---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Allegation against accused persons of forming a mob and resorting to vandalism while protesting for the release of some criminals---Contentions of accused persons were that other accused persons nominated in a different F.I.R., which emanated from the present F.I.R., had been released on bail; that neither any specific role was assigned to them nor any weapons had been recovered from them, and that prosecution had no medical evidence to connect the accused persons with the crime---Validity---Allegations against accused persons were general in nature and no recovery of weapons had been made from them---No medical report had come on record---
Prosecution did not contest the grounds raised by the accused in the present bail application---
Case under section 497(2), Cr.P.C. had been made out and accused persons were enlarged on bail.
2012 YLR 2568 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE ARSHAD MASIH Vs State
S. 497(2) & (4)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 148 &149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7--- Qatl-e-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Accused was alleged to have been holding a 'danda' at the time of occurrence and allegedly rounded the complainant party and assisted the co-accused in perpetrating the attack---Accused was named in F.I.R. but his mere presence at the spot with no overt act played by him was a factor requiring further probe as to his involvement---Commencement of trial by itself was not a bar to the grant of bail provided facts and circumstances permit as S. 497(4), Cr.P.C was very much clear in stating that bail can be granted even before the pronouncement of the judgment---Accused was enlarged on bail, in circumstances.
2012 MLD 1986 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH MOAZZAM alias MOAZZAN Vs State
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 365-A & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7- --Kidnapping or abduction for extorting property, valuable security etc., common intention, acts of terrorism---Bail, grant of---Accused and co-accused persons allegedly abducted the complainant's son (abductee) for ransom---Abductee was voluntarily released and recorded his statements under Ss.161 & 164, Cr.P.0 on basis of which accused was arrested---Name of accused did not transpire in the F.LR.---Abductee did not disclose the name of accused in his statements under Ss. 161 & 164, Cr.P.C---No identification parade was conducted---No incriminating article was recovered from possession of accused- No ransom had been paid to anyone---Only piece of evidence against accused was statements of prosecution witnesses under S. 161, Cr. P. C whereby they implicated the accused---Said statements under S. 161, Cr. P. C could be considered at time of trial as they had no evidentiary value at bail stage---Challan against accused had been submitted and he was no more required for further investigation---
Accused was allowed bail in circumstances.
2012 PLD 122 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN MUHAMMAD RASOOL Vs State
Ss. 12(1), 6, Third Sched., Cl.(iii)---Jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court---Attempt to commit or aid, or abetment of or any conspiracy to commit any of the offences stated in S.6 of Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997, to be a Scheduled offence, exclusively triable by Anti-Terrorism Court under S.12(1) of the said Act.
2012 PLD 38 ISLAMABAD BASHIR MASIH Vs State
Ss. 6(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 379---Theft---Illegal connection with main supply pipeline---Word "disrupt" occurring in S.6(2)(i), Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 is synonymous to word 'disorder', 'distract', interfere with' 'upset', 'abstract', 'distort', 'damage', 'sunder' etc.
2012 PCrLJ 1735 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE SHEHZAD ASIF RAZA Vs SPECIAL JUDGE ANTI-TERRORISM COURT
Ss. 6, 7 & 8---Act of terrorism, determination of---Essentials---In order to determine as to whether the offence would fall within the ambit of S.6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, it is essential to look into the allegations levelled in the F.I.R., the record of the case and the surrounding circumstances---Court was also to examine that the ingredients of the alleged offence had nexus with the object of the case as contemplated under Ss.6, 7 and 8 of the said Act---Motivation, object, design and purpose behind the act are also to be seen for determining its nature of terrorism, besides having been created by it a sense of insecurity in the public.
2012 PLD 38 ISLAMABAD BASHIR MASIH Vs State
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 379---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6(2) & 7---
Theft, acts of terrorism---Bail, refusal of---Theft of gas---Illegal connection with main supply pipeline---Accused had allegedly made illegal connection with the main gas pipeline and was supplying gas to households in the area in return of a fixed monthly bill---Bail application of accused had been dismissed twice by Trial Court---On application of the accused's mother, re- inquiry of the case was conducted, after which three sections of P.P.C were deleted from F.I.R. and only S.379, P.P.C remained---Accused applied for bail again, after said deletion of sections but his bail application was refused---Validity---Damaging supply line of a national resource/asset in connivance with officials of the Government department, thereby causing huge loss, was not an ordinary offence, rather it was serious in nature and grievous in consequence---Case against accused was a delicate and sensitive matter and came within the definition of a terrorist act, attracting the provisions of S.7 of Anti-Terrorism Act 1997---Bail petition of accused was dismissed.
2012 SCMR 517 SUPREME-COURT NAZEER AHMED Vs NOORUDDIN
S.6---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court, determination of---Accused (petitioners) had challenged the order passed by High Court, by which it directed the Investigating Officer to submit challan of accused before the Anti-Terrorism Court---
Validity---High Court had examined the material at length and had rightly concluded that the act of the accused created sense of insecurity amongst the villagers and did destabilize the public at large and, therefore, attracted the provisions of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---
Neither motive nor intention for commission of the offence was relevant for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction of the Anti-Terrorism Court and it was the act which was designed to create sense of insecurity and/or to destabilize the public at large, which attracted the provisions of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Accused's act created sense of insecurity
amongst the co-villagers---Order of High Court being well reasoned, Supreme Court dismissed accused's' petition and refused leave to appeal.
2012 SCMR 517 SUPREME-COURT NAZEER AHMED Vs NOORUDDIN
S. 6---Jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court, determination of---Principles---Neither motive nor intention for commission of the offence was relevant for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction on the Anti-Terrorism Court and it was the act which was designed to create sense of insecurity and/or to destabilize the public at large, which attracted the provisions of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
2012 PLD 22 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN GUL MUHAMMAD Vs State
Preamble & S.6(2)(g)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302(b)---Qatl-e-Amd---"Terrorism"---
Allegation of "Siyahkari"---Jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court---Any offence, where the offender would take the law in his own hands and awards punishment, that offence would fall within the purview of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Venue of the commission of a crime, the time of occurrence, the motive and the fact that whether or not said crime had been witnessed by public at large, were not the only determining factors for deciding the issue, whether a case did or did not fall within the parameters of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Crucial question would be whether said crime had or had not the effect of striking terror or creating a sense of fear and insecurity in the people or any section of the people---Accused, in the present case, had committed the murder of three innocent people on the false allegation of 'Siyahkari', while taking the law in his own hands, such act certainly would have created a sense of fear, panic and terror amongst the villagers---No licence could be granted to anyone to take the law of the land in his own hands and start executing the culprits himself, instead of taking them to the court of law---Murder based on "Ghairat" did not furnish a valid mitigating circumstance for awarding a lesser sentence---Killing of innocent people, specially the women on to pretext of 'Siyahkari' was un-Islamic, illegal and unconstitutional---Under S.6(2)(g) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, in case of unjustified murder by a person, who on account of his immorality or to satisfy his brutal instinct, would take the law in his own hands, was responsible for creating sensation and panic in the society---Offences committed on the pretext of 'Siyahkari' would fall within the domain of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and all the cases pending before the ordinary courts would stand transferred to the Anti-Terrorism Courts.
2012 MLD 158 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN SHER AHMED Vs KHUDA-E-RAHIM
Ss. 4 & 5---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302/34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 3, 6, 13 [as amended by Anti-Terrorism (Amendment) Ordinance (XXXIX of 2011)] & 39(1)---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 9 & 199---Constitutional petition---Double murder on allegation of siyahkari---
Conviction and sentence awarded to accused on 27-10-1999 by Special Court after his trial in
absentia---Order of Sessions Judge suspending such conviction/ sentence and directing fresh trial of accused on his application made in November, 2010 under S. 5-A(7) of Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975---Validity---Special Court was not in existence on the date of such application, rather its successor forum i.e. Anti-Terrorism Court established under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was in existence---Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 was repealed vide S. 39(1) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, but acts done under Act of 1975 were given due protection by S. 39(2) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Accused had committed double murder on bald allegation of siyahkari in a brutal manner by means of firing with kalashinkov---Such act of accused being a Scheduled offence fell within ambit of S. 6(ii)(g) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and his case was exclusively triable by Special Court constituted under S. 3 thereof---Neither law nor religion permitted so-called honour killing, which amounted to murder---Such iniquitous and vile act of accused was violative of Art. 9 of the Constitution---Present case was instituted under repealed Act of 1975, whereunder accused could be punished by Judge of Anti-Terrorism Court, if prosecution succeeded to establish his guilt---High Court set aside impugned order and directed Sessions Judge to transmit main case along with such application to concerned Anti-Terrorism Court for its decision in accordance with law.
2012 PCrLJ 178 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Haji ALLAH NAZAR Vs SPECIAL JUDGE ANTI-TERRORISM COURT-II, QUETTA
Ss. 6, 7 & 28---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 427/109, 447, 147, 148 & 149---Mischief causing damage to the amount of five lac rupees, criminal trespass---Transfer of case to ordinary court-- -Offences against accused were of simple nature like trespass or damage to a property of the opponent, which were punishable not more than two years---Record had shown that a dispute of personal nature existed between the parties for the determination of ownership of leased area---For cases of terrorism, falling under Ss.6 & 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, there must be not only Scheduled Offence under S.6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, but also mens rea for creating intentional sense of terror or fear or insecurity in the society---Cases having background of personal enmity and taking private revenge, did not fall within the ambit of Ss.6 & 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Special Judge, was not justified to reject application of accused for sending matter to the Court of Sessions Judge---Order of Special Judge was illegal as matter in question was within the domain of the regular courts---Cases were ordered to be withdrawn from the court of Special Judge and transferred to the court of Judicial Magistrate concerned for disposal in accordance with law, in circumstances.
2012 PCrLJ 33 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN MICHAEL NAZIR Vs State
Ss. 302(b) & 324
---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit
qatl-e-amd and
terrorism---Appreciation
of evidence---Prosecution version,
seemed to be
absolutely true
for genuine and valid
reasons---Prosecution evidence
was consistent,
straightforward confidence-inspiring, corroborative to each other and flawless---No ambiguity or doubt was noticed in the prosecution case qua the commission of offence by accused---
Medical evidence, recovery of firearm from the possession of accused, positive report of Ballistic Expert, corroborated the ocular account---Accused claimed that he had been booked in the case not because he had committed any offence, but because he had embraced Islam---
Stand taken by the defence was not acceptable for the reasons that prosecution evidence had proved the fact that accused had fired upon deceased and injured prosecution witnesses; that as a consequence of the firing made by accused, two persons sustained bullet injuries and died instantaneously, whereas two prosecution witnesses sustained bullet injuries; that motive as set up by the defence, was neither plausible nor probable; that despite weakness of motive, defence had failed to prove the motive so agitated---Stance of defence, in view of overwhelming evidence, baseless, preposterous and nothing more than a cobweb---Accused, in the light of material on record had committed the preplanned, wilful, intentional and cold- blooded murder of two innocent, harmless and helpless persons, beside causing the firearm injuries to two prosecution witnesses---Appeal filed by accused was dismissed, in circumstances.
2012 PCrLJ 33 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN MICHAEL NAZIR Vs State
Ss. 302(b) & 324---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit qatl-e-amd and terrorism---Sentence, enhancement of---Intention---Scope---Trial Court had proposed lesser punishment on the ground of lack of mens rea---Criminal intention must exist to constitutie a crime---"Intention" did not imply or assume the existence of some previous design or forethought but could be proved by or inferred from the act of accused and circumstances of the case---Continuous firing by accused who was an educated person and fully aware of the consequences of his act, was reflective of his intention---Unprovoked act of firing by accused on the vital part of deceased persons, led to irresistible conclusion that accused intended to cause the death of the victims---Evidence produced by the prosecution was straightforward, confidence-inspiring, cogent, consistent, unimpeachable, unshaken and had brought home the charge against accused to the hilt---Evidence did not suffer from any infirmity---In such state of affairs it was beyond imagination to conclude that no 'mens rea' or intention was on the part of accused---Conclusion of the Trial Court regarding non-availability of "mens rea" or lack of intention to commit the murder of deceased persons having no basis and foundation, was rejected in circumstances---No reasons existed which could justify a sympathetic, a lenient or concessional treatment for accused---In absence of any mitigating and extenuating circumstances justifying the imposition of lesser punishment, sentence of life imprisonment awarded to accused was converted to that of death sentence.
2012 PCrLJ 154 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFP ZAKIR HUSSAIN alias KAMI Vs THE STATE through A.-G. KPK
Ss. 6, 7 & 23---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 148/149---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---
Qatl-e-amd--- Constitutional petition---"Terrorism"---Scope---Transfer of case from Anti- Terrorism Court to court of ordinary jurisdiction---Accused facing trial before the Judge, Anti- Terrorism Court, had sought transfer of case to court of ordinary jurisdiction on the ground that same did not fall under provisions of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Application of accused was turned down by Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court---Validity---Very object and purpose behind the promulgation of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was to provide speedy and expeditious mechanism for trial of heinous offences to prevent terrorism and sectarian violence---To attract the provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, one had to find nexus of series of acts which accused had allegedly committed---To determine whether act of accused as narrated in the F.I.R. constituted offence of terrorism, was to be examined in the light of the definition of the word, "terrorism" provided in the Act. another determing aspect was whether act had created a sense of fear and insecurity in the public or in any section of public or community---If such ingredients were missing, then the act committed could not be held to be an act of "terrorism" and would be out of the domain of Anti-Terrorism Court---In the present case, matter of missing of the son of complainant was reported by the brother of the complainant---Matter was inquired and case was registered under S.364-A/34, P.P.C. against accused for abduction of minor son of the complainant---On recovery of the dead body, section of law was altered and S.302, P.P.C. was added---Incident appeared to be a brutal murder of a minor boy---Mere brutal murder in absence of requirements of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, would not constitute an offence under S.7 of said Act---Element of sense of fear or insecurity in public or a section of public, was also missing---Any case of murder with a story of brutality alone would not make a case triable by Anti-Terrorism Court, for which courts of ordinary jurisdiction were there to deal with---Facts narrated in the F.I.R. having not attracted the provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, Anti-Terrorism Court had no jurisdiction to try accused thereunder--- Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.
2012 SCMR 59 SUPREME-COURT AHMED JAN Vs NASRULLAH
S. 302---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.6---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.173---
Qatl-e-amd---'Terrorism'---Assumption of jurisdiction---Scope---Transfer of proceedings---Four accused one armed with pistol, one with knife and remaining with sticks attacked complainant party in consequence of which one person died and one received injuries and the case was transferred to Special Court of Anti-Terrorism for trial---Validity---No motive was alleged in F.I.R. against accused and police after due investigation submitted Challan/report under S.173, Cr.P.C. before Court of Sessions who entrusted to Additional Sessions judge who transmitted it to Special Court established under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Supreme Court directed to transmit the record of case to Trial Court and set aside the judgment passed by High Court---
Appeal was allowed.
2012 PLD 22 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN GUL MUHAMMAD Vs
State
Ss. 302(b) & 311---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Preamble & Ss.6(2)(g), 7(a)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.345---Qatl-e-amd---Tazir after waiver or compounding of right of qisas in qatl-e-amd---Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was enacted for prevention of terrorism, sectarian violence and speedy trial of heinous offences-Said Act being a special law, private complainant or the legal heirs of the deceased, had no right to compound the "scheduled offence" as those offences were mainly against the State and not against individuals---Offences could not be compounded automatically by legal heirs, but were always through the court; and the court could decline the permission to compromise the offence by the legal heirs of victim---
Even the ordinary courts under S.311, P.P.C., could punish accused, if the offence had been compounded, by the legal heirs, on the basis of "Fasad-Fil-Arz"---Not providing the right to compromise the offence by the legal heirs of deceased, was neither violation of Islamic Injunctions; nor of any fundamental rights.
2012 SCMR 59 SUPREME-COURT AHMED JAN Vs NASRULLAH
S. 302---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 6---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 169---
Constitution of Pakistan, Art.185(3)---Qatl-e-amd---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider the contention of accused that case registered against him did not fulfil criteria laid down under S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, for the purpose of trial by Special Judge, as no lethal firearms were used by accused and other persons and it was a usual free fight between two factions, which had taken place at the spur of moment without any previous criminal intimidation; furthermore pistol was used by one accused who had been discharged by prosecution under S.169, Cr.P.C.
2011 PCrLJ 411 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHMUHAMMAD BILAL alias SULLEMAN Vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through the Secretary Ministry of Law, Justice and Human Rights Division
Ss. 6(2)(d), 6(2)(ee), 7(b)(ff), 17, 23 & 25---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.507---Telegraph Act (XIII
of 1885), S.25-D---
Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Trial by Anti-
Terrorism Court---
Scope---Act of terrorism likely to cause death or endanger a person's life, act
of terrorism that involves use of explosives by any devise including bomb blast, criminal intimidation by anonymous communication---Accused contended that Anti-Terrorism Court was not competent to convict him of non-scheduled offence as provisions of S.17 of Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997 were not attracted in his case---Validity---Offences under S.6(2)(d) and S.6(2)(ee) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 were not proved against the accused---Only offence proved against accused was that of criminal intimidation under S.507, P.P.C. which was not a scheduled offence---Anti-Terrorism Court was empowered to try a non-scheduled offence only
along with/in addition to scheduled offence(s) at the same trial under S.17 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 which did not empower an Anti-Terrorism Court to try non-scheduled offence when said court was not trying a scheduled offence---Under S.23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 Anti- Terrorism Court was bound to transfer the case of non-scheduled offence to any court having jurisdiction to try such offence---Once Anti-Terrorism Court had formed the opinion that the only offence proved against the accused was criminal intimidation under S.507, P.P.C., the court should not have proceeded to convict the accused of the offence as S.23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 did not confer jurisdiction on said court to pass judgment on non-scheduled offence---
Mere commencement of trial was not a ground to decline transfer of case under S.23 of Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997---Impugned judgment being. without jurisdiction and nullity in the eyes of law, could not be maintained---Constitutional petition was, therefore, converted into special Anti-Terrorism-appeal--No limitation would run against the judgment of Anti-Terrorism Court on the ground that such judgment was passed without jurisdiction---Appeal was allowed; impugned judgment was set aside and case was remanded to the Anti-Terrorism Court for transfer to the Court of Session for trial in accordance with law.
2011 PCrLJ 389 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court NAVEED HUSSAIN Vs State
S. 302(b)---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7 & 21-H---West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13(d)---Qatl-e-amd, terrorism and possession of arms---Appreciation of evidence---Identification of accused immediately after the occurrence being not possible, his name did not appear in the F.I.R.---Substitution of two empty shells, was not possible which was found from the scene and were sealed in the presence of witness for onward transmission- --Statements of witnesses recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C. as well as the statements recorded by competent Judicial Magistrate under S.164, Cr.P.C., did not suffer from any defect---All the possible legal formalities were completed before recording of such statements---Such statements were voluntary and true---Identification parade was conducted by a very competent and impartial Assistant Commissioner fulfilling all the formalities of the identification parade in presence of witnesses, who deposed in favour of the prosecution and their statements had not been shattered by the defence---Such fact had provided strong inference against accused and proved the case against him and said piece of evidence was a strong link in the commission of offence---Defence had failed to bring on record any circumstances whereby it could be considered that accused had been involved in the case due to mala fide intention other than the motive put forward by the prosecution---Prosecution had succeeded in establishing the guilt of accused---Judgment of conviction and sentence passed against accused was based on fact; and nothing was available to indicate that judgment passed by the Trial Court was based on any error of law or was opposed to well established principles of judicial approach; or it could in any manner be characterized as unjustified---Sentence of death was rightly and carefully awarded to accused, which did not admit of any interference by Chief Court.
2011 YLR 19 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE TARIQ HAKIM Vs State
Ss. 302/324/34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7 & 23---Constitu-tion of Pakistan, Art. 199---Qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit qatl-e-amd and act of terrorism---Constitutional petition- --Anti-Terrorism Court had dismissed the application of the accused petitioner moved under S.23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 for transfer of the case to the court of ordinary jurisdiction- --Validity---Complainant had stated in the F.I.R. that the assailants after identifying his brother had made firing on his vehicle, which showed their clear intention to do away with only his brother and not the others who could not be saved due to their accompanying with the target of assailants in the same vehicle-Although the F.I.R. did not reflect the names of the accused persons, yet the incident was the result of enmity and personal vendetta, as was apparent from the supplementary statement made by the complainant before the police, wherein he had categorically narrated all the facts clearly suggesting that the incident had taken place due to previous enmity---Occurrence in the case had neither reflected any act of terrorism, nor any sectarian matter, instead the murders had been committed owing to previous enmity between the parties---Occurrence, therefore, could not in any manner be declared falling within the ambit of S. 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, I997---Anti-Terrorism Court had committed an illegality while passing the impugned order assuming the jurisdiction to try the offences---Impugned order was consequently set-aside and the case was transferred to the court of ordinary jurisdiction for trial in accordance with law---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.
2011 YLR 19 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE TARIQ HAKIM Vs State
S.6--- 'Terrorism'--- Words "designed to"---Connotation---Words "designed to" used in S. 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, means the object, motive or purpose behind the act and not the consequential effect created by such act.
2011 YLR 19 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOR TARIQ HAKIM Vs State
Ss. 6, 7 & 8---Determination as to whether an offence falls within the ambit of S.6, Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997---Guide lines---Motive and object both make a path for guideance in order to determine whether the offence falls within the domain of Anti-Terrorism Act or not---Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 reflects two words, namely, "designed to" and "action" and from the interpretation of both these words one can draw an inference that whether the offence falls within the ambit of terrorism or not---Intention of the Legislature is very much clear from the words "designed to" and "action" and both the words have great impact on each other in order to constitute an action as act of terrorism---From the meaning of simple word "action" it is very different to deduct that the action of a person was an act of terrorism without the word "designed to" which means object behind the action---If the brutality of the act of a person is declared terrorism, then every murder case will fall within the definition of terrorism, as seen from any angle the murder is always committed in a brutal manner---Definition of terrorism, thus, is incomplete without the words, "designed to" which means the object, motive or purpose behind the act and not the consequential effect created by such act.
2011 PCrLJ 370 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court ISHTIAQ Vs State
Ss. 302/324/34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6/7/21-H---West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13(d)---Qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, terrorism and recovery of arms---Appreciation of evidence---F.I.R. had been lodged well in time and contents of F.I.R. disclosed the names of the injured, the deceased and that of the witnesses---F.I.R. also disclosed the type of the weapons used in the offence---Narration of the F.I.R. regarding the facts of the case had been put forward in a very natural manner and was confidence inspiring---
During the cross-examination, minor improvements had been brought on record, which were not of the intensity to shatter the veracity of the said witnesses---Was very natural for the witness in the dark to identify an individual from headlights of vehicle---Accused as well as the witness belonged to the same locality and question of mistaken identity did not arise---Injured witness in his examination in the Trial Court had fully supported the prosecution case---Other two witnesses had fully deposed against accused persons and the role played by them as well as the arms used for the commission of the offence by accused persons, were identified---Two very important recovery witnesses had proved the recoveries of the weapon used by accused---
Both witnesses were impartial Police personnel who did not belong to the locality and did not have any axe to grind---Preparation of the recovery memos did not suffer from any infirmity---
Recovered empty shells had matched the weapons of offence used which had proved against accused---Incident was a result of sectarian hatred between the parties as many a case had occurred within the vicinity of the complainant and accused party---Murders and attempted murders had occurred in the past---Statements of the witnesses, examined backed up by the motive and weapons of offence proved against the accused---Sentence awarded to accused by the Trial Court, was upheld, in circumstances.
2011 PCrLJ 1370 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH NOORUDDIN Vs NAZEER AHMED
Ss. 6 & 7---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 147, 148 & 149---West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13(d)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.561-A---Qatl-e-amd, terrorism and possessing unlicenced arms---Quashing of order, application for---Police, after conducting investigation submitted challan in Anti-Terrorism Court for trial, but Judge vide impugned order returned the police papers to Investigating Officer for submitting challan before the court having jurisdiction as according to opinion of Judge, Ss. 6 & 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 did not attract in the case---Validity---While deciding, whether challan was to be entertained or not, Trial Court had failed to consider the true perspective of S.6 of Ant-Terrorism Act, 1997 and in a slipshod manner returned the challan on the effortless notion that it was a case of previous enmity, which was not the sole criterion to decide---Had the court while passing the impugned order considered the gravity and seriousness of the violent act and atrocity, it might have expressed the different view---In order to find out the severity of charge, whether S.6 of Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997 would apply or not, it was expedient to look into the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. by the complainant---Depiction of incident had clearly deduced and figured out that
three persons had been murdered brutally in the daylight at the shop situated in the market---
Shop was bolted from inside, even then accused persons had climbed on the roof of the shop and broken the roof and viciously murdered three persons---All accused persons were alleged to have made heavy aerial firing to create harassment and terrorism---Three persons had been brutally murdered in the daylight in the shop situated in the market, had an overall impact of creating a sense of fear or insecurity in the society; and risk to safety of the public and frightened the general public, thereby preventing them from coming out and carrying on their lawful trade and daily business and disrupted civil life---Applicant had attached the photos of broken roof of the shop and the bodies of victims lying at the hospital which portrayed dreadful and terrible state of affairs; and the niceties of incident committed in a manner which unquestionably and undoubtedly amounted to terrorism as enumerated in S.6 of Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997---Impugned order was set aside with the direction to Investigating Officer' to submit the challan in the Anti-Terrorism Court concerned.
2011 PCrLJ 1424 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH MUHAMMAD SHAFI alias PAPAN Vs State
S. 365-A---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Abduction for extorting property, valuable security etc. and terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of alleged abductee, itself appeared to be doubtful in view of glaring contradictions and discrepancies available in the evidence of two prosecution witnesses---Prosecution, in circumstances, had not proved the case against accused---Main charge was against father of alleged abductee who was a natural guardian, but he was acquitted by the Trial Court, on whose alleged pointation alleged abductee was recovered---Trial Court had found that no direct evidence was available on record to connect the father and his co-accused with the commission of offence---Accused was convicted due to circumstantial evidence on the sole ground that alleged abductee was recovered from his otaq, which was totally doubtful in view of evidence of two prosecution witnesses---Mother of alleged abductee never appeared in the court despite bailable warrants, for recording evidence who received telephonic calls from the kidnappers for the demand of ransom---Father could not be held liable for kidnapping his own son being a natural guardian---
Prosecution having failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt; impugned judgment was set aside and accused was acquitted of the charge and was released, in circumstances.
2011 SCMR 1665 SUPREME-COURT HABIBULLAH Vs State
S. 10(3)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 354-A & 452---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 6(b)---Zina-bil-Jabar, assault or use of criminal force to woman and stripping her of her clothes and house trespass---Reappraisal of evidence---Solitary statement of prosecutrix---Marks of violence, absence of---Accused was convicted and sentenced by Trial Court for imprisonment for 20 years and the same was maintained by High Court---Contention of accused was that there were no marks of violence found on the body of prosecutrix, therefore, benefit of doubt
should be extended to him---Validity---Veracity of prosecutrix's statement was the inherent merit of her statement because corroborative evidence alone could not be made a base to award conviction---Contention of accused was in oblivion of thy' fact that rape was proved on the basis of cogent and concrete evidence including medical evidence---Marks of violence were not essential to establish factum of Zina-bil-Jabar---Supreme Court after keeping defence version in juxtaposition, declined to take into consideration the same as it was baseless---
Merely on the basis of a petty matter nobody would like to stigmatize her innocent daughter for her entire life which would have a substantial bearing on her future---Supreme Court declined to interfere in the conviction and sentence awarded to accused by the Courts below---
Appeal was dismissed.
2011 SCMR 1644 SUPREME-COURT Syed ARSHAD ALI SHAH BUKHARI Vs State
S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324/392/395---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Attempt to commit Qatl-e--amd, robbery and dacoity---Bail, grant of---Case of further inquiry---"Robbery" and "Dacoity"---Distinguished---Innocence of co-accused---Stolen property, non-recovery of---Four out of eight accused persons nominated in F.I.R. were declared by investigating agency to be innocent, reducing number of culprits to less than five, thus instead of S. 395, P.P. C., only S. 392, P.P. C. could be attracted---Even provision of S. 392, P. P. C. did not find support from the circumstances as it had been alleged in F.I.R. that some mobile phone sets were snatched away by culprits from two members of police party but during investigation no such mobile telephone sets had been recovered---No independent proof of any violence against any member of police force endangering life or property of any member of police force was available---Prima facie it was doubtful at bail stage as to whether provisions of S.6 read with S. 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, were attracted or not---Bail was allowed.
2011 YLR 655 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH MUHAMMAD SHAHID HANIF Vs State
S. 302(a)/34---Anti-Terrorism Act(XXVII of 1997), Ss.6(1)(c), 6(2)(a) & 7(a)---West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13(d)---Qatl-e-amd, terrorism and possession of arms-- -Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Confessional statements of accused persons were recorded after a delay of more than 10 days and prosecution had failed to explain said inordinate delay in recording the same---Confessional statements were not corroborated by any independent evidence---Confessional statements of accused were recorded after 8 days of the Identification Parade, which appeared to be not voluntary and true and also generated doubt in the prosecution case---Witnesses had not assigned any role to any of accused at the time of identification parade, which had created doubt in the prosecution case---Recoveries as alleged were effected in presence of two persons, but the prosecution had failed to examine the said two persons---Non-examination of the private witnesses also had created serious doubt in the prosecution case---Recoveries, in circumstances were doubtful---Two prosecution witnesses were chance witnesses and no person from the locality was examined by the prosecution, while they were available---Complainant had not given the names of two
prosecution witnesses in his statement under S.154, Cr. P. C. ---Evidence of said witnesses could not be taken into consideration, in circumstances---Evidence on record did not satisfy accepted requirements of safe administration of criminal justice---Accused, in circum-stances, were entitled to benefit of doubt--Impugned judgment of court below was set aside, accused were acquitted of the charge and were released, in circumstances.
2011 PCrLJ 1022 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court ASADULLAH alias SHAKIRULLAH Vs State
Ss. 302/337-A/337-11/440/34/109/114---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6, 7/21-C(7)(f), 21-F, 21-G & 23---Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (XXII of 2000), Ss.4 & 14---Qatl-e-amd, causing Shajjah, rash or negligent act and mischief-Application for transfer of case from Anti- Terrorism Court to Juvenile Court---Contention of accused was that he being minor, could only be tried by court specially constituted under Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, irrespective of the charge under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Deputy Advocate General had submitted that mere juvenility of accused who was charged under Ss. 6 & 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 coupled with other charges of P.P. C., could not take away the jurisdiction of a court constituted under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 having exclusive jurisdiction over the charges of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, which was a special law was enacted for the trial of the scheduled offences provided under the said Act---Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 was also a special law and was for trial of special class of offenders defined thereunder, and said Ordinance provided exclusive jurisdiction to court constituted thereunder in a case where an accused was below the age of 18 years---Said Ordinance being later law, had further provided that its provisions would not be in derogation of any law, but would be in addition to laws prevailing at the moment when said Ordinance, was promulgated---Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997 was enforced in 1997, much prior to the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, which was promulgated, in 2000---Later law/Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, in circumstances, would never affect provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Section 14 of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 had strengthened the view that the court constituted under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 had jurisdiction over the scheduled offence, irrespective of any limit of age or any other class of offenders---Section 21-G, which was latest insertion in Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997, had overriding effect over all the related provisions and provided exclusive jurisdiction to the court constituted under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 over the offence defined in said Act by an offender including a child/minor.
2011 PCrLJ 1004 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE AMEER HUSSAIN Vs State
Ss. 6 & 7(h)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 149---Act of terrorism---Scope---To bring an offence within the ambit of terrorism, it was necessary that threat was used to design to coerce and intimidate or overawe the government, public, community or sect; or if the act was made to create a sense of fear or insecurity in society or the purpose was to advance a religious,
sectarian or ethnic cause; and the action involved firing or serious risk to safety of Public; or to frighten the general public by burning vehicles etc., or extortion of money (Bhatha); or the threat was designed to serious interfere with or seriously disrupt communication system; or public utility service; or it involved serious coercion or intimidation of a public servant in order to force him to discharge or to refrain from discharging his lawful duty; or involved serious violence against a member of the Police force or public servant---Prosecution story in the present case was that accused persons were fighting with each other and prosecution had not claimed that accused were disrupting any communication system or were violent against the Police force; or any public servant present at the place of occurrence; or that panic had been created at the spot resulting into sense of insecurity among the public---Accused were not armed with any kind of weapon at the time of occurrence-Accused in circumstances, could not be presumed to be in a position to use threat in order to create panic or sense of fear or insecurity in the society at large, it could not be termed as terrorism---Even an action which resulted into some terror, could not be equated with terrorism, while it was not intended so, because an action would amount to terrorism, if it was projected with the mens rea of creating panic or insecurity---Parties had come to persue their matters, pending before the High Court; as it appeared that at the spur of moment something happened culminating fight between them, which was not premeditated, nor its object was designed to create fear and insecurity in the society at large; or any community for that matter---Accused had not committed the offence falling within the ambit of S.7(h) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, in circumstances.
2011 MLD 950 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN AZIZULLAH Vs State
Ss. 6, 7 & 28---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302(b)/34 & 324---Qatl-e-amd and attempt to commit qatl-e-amd---Terrorism---Transfer of case front court of ordinary jurisdiction to court of Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court---Application for---Case was sought to be transferred from the files of Sessions Judge to court of Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, on the grounds that accused were absconding; that the offence had been committed on main road; that incident had created severe fear and panic in the area and that the offence was an act of terrorism and fell within the ambit of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Validity---Offence alleged to have been committed by accused persons, was with the motive to kill the victims by firing with Kalashnikov---Act was committed on a highway on basis of past enmity existed between both the parties as per contents of F.I.R. ---Intended action though had caused loss of life and caused hurt, but only that fact would not constitute an offence to bring same within the purview of terrorism and it was to be established, that alleged act created any sense of insecurity in general; or even to a particular section of society; or threat or sense of fear had been created due to the same---In the present case, though one person had lost his life and other sustained serious injuries, but ingredient required for forming an offence under S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, which was intimidation or overawe, either the government or section of public, was missing---Application for transfer of case was dismissed, in circumstances.
2011 PLD 997 SUPREME-COURT WATAN PARTY Vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
Ss. 386, 387 & 388---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.6(1)(k)---Offences of extortion of money, which can also be considered as bhatta, is covered by Ss.386, 387 & 388 of P.P.C. and falls within definition of "terrorism" given in S.6(1)(k), Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Such crime can be controlled by applying said laws strictly.
2011 YLR 2929 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH SHERAL Vs SAJAN alias SAJOO
S.526---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302/324/337-H(2)/452/147/148/149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7, 12 & 23---Qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, causing hurt by rash and negligent act and trespassing---Application for transfer of case from the Sessions Court to Anti-Terrorism Court---Case was sought to be transferred by the appellant/complainant on the ground that offence for which F.I.R. had been filed, was a heinous offence and fell under the definition of scheduled offence, which could only be tried-under S.12 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 by the Anti-Terrorism Court---Crime allegedly committed by the respondents/accused, being heinous, was enough to. create a sense of insecurity and panic in the minds of all sections of general public and terrorize the minds of all the persons who learnt about the same---
Offence- in the cases fell within the ambit of Ss.6 & 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and the right forum to adjudicate the offence, was the Anti-Terrorism Court and not the Sessions Court- --Transfer application was allowed and Sessions Judge was directed to immediately transfer the case to Anti-Terrorism Court which was directed to conduct the proceedings of the case expeditiously.
2011 YLR 2330 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE JAHANGIR Vs State
Ss. 6 & 7---'Terrorism'---Ordinary criminal assault and physical violence to a victim would not fall within the purview of 'terrorism' as defined in S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---To take cognizance under the Act, it would remain incumbent upon the court to examine impact of alleged violence and also to see as to whether alleged criminal act was designed to create a sense of terror, fear and insecurity in the mind of general public creating panic in the society---
Existence of said parameters, was vital to bring the offender within the purview of the offences under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
2011 YLR 2330 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE JAHANGIR Vs State
S. 376---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6/7---Rape and terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Examination-in-chief of both eye-witnesses had made it clear that their statements on the vital dimensions of prosecution case i.e. time and place of occurrence, nomination of accused, particular attribution of commission of rape with minor victim, were in line and corroborative to each other---Both the witnesses had furnished
probable and plausible reasons of their presence at the time and place of occurrence---
Testimony of both the witnesses bore intrinsic value and inherent worth of truthfulness and were safely reliable---Despite searching cross-examination upon both the witnesses, nothing material elicited in favour of the offence---Medical evidence produced by the prosecution, had furnished sufficient corroboration to the ocular account---Accumulating appraisal of the confidence inspiring ocular account having corroboration of the medical evidence, had led to conclusion that prosecution had sufficiently established the charge of commission of rape with minor victim against accused---Subsequent conduct of accused in fleeing away from the place of occurrence along with his shalwar having sight of the witnesses, also indicated his guilt---
Charge under S.7(1) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, both the witnesses had not uttered even a single word in their examination-in-chief with regard to striking off any panic, terror, fear or insecurity in the public or locality in result of the alleged occurrence---Single statement of one witness that after the incident of molestation there was panic all around the area, was neither reliable nor confidence inspiring---Said solitary statement of the witness lacking inherent worth without any further corroboration was totally insufficient to prove the charge that alleged occurrence resulted into striking terror, fear or sense of insecurity among the public in the relevant vicinity attracting S.7(1) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Provisions of Ss.6/7 of Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997, being not attracted at all in the peculiar circumstances of the case, to that extent appeal of accused was accepted and accused was acquitted in the charge under S.7(1) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Arraignment of accused in the charge under S.376, P.P.C. had been established to the hilt---Defence side had failed to create any dent or doubt in the prosecution evidence with any speck of material---No reason existed to take exception to the conviction of accused under S.376, P.P.C. as judged by the Trial Court---Accused was unmarried young person aged about 24 years, having no criminal history of involvement in any case of like nature---Since accused was not a habitual offender, chances of his rehabilitation, could not be ruled out---
Keeping in view the tender age of accused with genuine hope that he could come up as a useful member of the society, taking lenient view, maintaining his conviction under S.376, P.P.C. his sentences were modified and reduced to 20 years R.I., accordingly.
2011 YLR 2300 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH GHULAM MURTAZA JAMALI Vs State
S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.384, 109 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 6(1)(k)-Extortion and terrorism---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Names of Mashirs did not appear in the very F.I.R. in which the complainant was shown to have proceeded from Police Station to the place of alleged incident as per the directions of the Police---No Mashirnama was prepared at the spot in respect of the recovery of the cash allegedly received by accused and recovered from his possession---Mashirnama in question had shown that accused was first taken from the spot towards the Police Station where such Mashirnama was prepared---
Complainant also admitted on a query that both Mashirs were his subordinates---Alleged demand of "Bhatta" made by accused from the complainant on Mobile Phone, also needed further inquiry---Accused being entitled to the concession of bail, was admitted to bail, in circumstances.
2011 PCrLJ 1370 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH NOORUDDIN Vs NAZEER AHMED
Ss. 6 & 7---"Terrorism"---Meaning and applicability---Word 'Terrorism', inter cilia would mean the use or threat of action, where use or threat was designed to coerce and intimidate or overawe the government or the public; or a section of public or community; or sect or create a sense of fear or insecurity in society; and would create a serious risk to safety of the public or a section of public; or was designed to frighten the general public and thereby prevent them from coming out and carrying on their lawful trade and daily business; and disrupt civil life---Section 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 has its own independent applicability and interpretation and all acts of `terrorism' in relation thereto were to be seen on the touchstone of S.6 which has provided and defined in detail the meaning of 'terrorism'---Legislature has neither provided any immunity nor relaxation that in case of previous enmity the case would not be tried by the Anti- Terrorism Court, but again the criteria to judge was the gravity of offence; and its modus operandi, whether it created a sense of fear or insecurity in the society; and created a serious risk to safety of the public or a section of the public; or was designed to frighten the general public; and thereby prevent them from coming out and carrying on their lawful trade and daily business; and disrupt civil life---Striking off terror was sine qua non for the application of provisions of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 which could not be determined without examining the nature, gravity and heinousness. of the alleged offence, contents of F.I.R., its cumulative effect on the society or a group of persons--- "Terrorism " would mean the use or threat of "action" where the action would fall within the meaning of subsection (2) of S.6 of Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997; and would create a serious risk to the safety of the public; or a section of the public; or was designed to frighten the general public---Such action would amount to 'terrorism' as enumerated in S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
2011 MLD 1212 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Dr. SOHRAB KHAN Vs SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT
S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324/147/148/149 & 425---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6/7---Attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, mischief---Pre-arrest bail, grant of---Only allegation against accused in the F.I.R. was that he was found present at the place of incident, beyond that nothing was alleged against him---Other 17 co-accused named in the same crime had already been granted bail---Accused, in circumstances, was not only entitled to grant of bail on merits, but also on the rule of consistency---Interim pre-arrest bail already granted to accused, was confirmed, in circumstances.
2011 PCrLJ 370 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court ISHTIAQ Vs State
Ss. 302/324/34--- Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6/7/21-H---West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13(d)---Qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, terrorism and
recovery of arms---Appreciation of evidence---Confession---Evidentiary value---Privilege of the prosecution to adduce or abandon any witness---Non--examination of the other occupants of the vehicle in question; was not necessary when there was already a sizeable amount of material placed by the prosecution against accused on record---Prosecution had the privilage to adduce or abandon any witness which it would think unnecessary---Confessional statements recorded under S.21-H of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, could by itself not constitute a material evidence on which a criminal case could be based for conviction---Confessional statement recorded by a Police Officer would be very useful to rely on, but it could be read as a piece of evidence along with the other material on record.
2011 PCrLJ 389 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court NAVEED HUSSAIN Vs State
S. 302(b)---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7 & 21-H---West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13(d)---Qatl-e-amd, terrorism and possession of ' arms---Appreciation of evidence---Confessional statement of accused---After the amendment in S.21-H of Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997 whereby a proviso had been added to the section, legislature had made it mandatory that statement under said section would be admissible in evidence, which had to be read with the provision of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
2010 YLR 3184 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Chaudhry ASGHAR SHAHEEN Vs Raja MUNAWAR HUSSAIN
Ss.6/7 & 23---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324/440/452/506/337-A(ii)/337-L(2)/109---
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Act of terrorism, attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, mischief committed after preparation made for causing death for hurt, house-trespass after preparation or hurt, assault or wrongful restraint, criminal intimidation, causing hurt, abetment---Constitution petition---Transfer of case by Anti-Terrorism Court to Regular Court for trial---Validity---Motivation, object, design or purpose behind an act had to be assessed to label the same as a terrorist act---Two groups of Advocates had clashed with each other in a full house session of District Bar Association with the agenda of discussing the probabilities of dismembering certain Members of District Bar Association, which was purely a personal agenda and had nothing to do with any design to commit the act of 'terrorism'---Receipt of injuries by a few during the occurrence was, at the most, an aftermath of the brawl between the two groups of Advocates and by no stretch of imagination the occurrence contained in the F.I.R. or in the private complaint could be termed as an act of terrorism---Anti-Terrorism Court had rightly concluded on sufficient reasons that the occurrence did not fall within the mischief of terrorism as defined in section 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and had termed the same as a purely indigenous trouble, haunting affairs of the District Bar Association---Impugned order of transfer of case to the Court of Area Magistrate did not suffer from any misreading or non-reading of the record---Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine in circumstances.
2010 YLR 2693 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH TAHIR MUGHERI Vs State
S.497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.365-A, 148 & 149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6/7---Kidnapping or abduction for extortion---Bail, grant of---Bail had been sought by accused on the ground of hardship and delay in conclusion of the trial---Accused was arrested on 5-11-2004 and since then he was in custody---High Court by its order directed the Trial Court to decide the matter preferably within three months, but that order passed by the High Court had not been complied with---Inordinate delay in prosecution amounting to abuse of process of law, could be treated as sufficient ground for grant of bail---Alleged abductee sworn his affidavit in which he exonerated accused from commission of offence of abduction---Statement of the abductee should be given proper weight while deciding the matter of kidnapping for ransom---Accused, in circumstances, had succeeded in making out a case for grant of bail---
Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.
2010 GBLR 280 SUPREME-APPELATE-COURT-GILGIT SHAKIRULLAH alias DOCTOR Vs State
Ss. 302/324/109/34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Qatl-e-amd; attempt to commit qatl-e-amd and abetment---Delay in conclusion of trial---Case was pending for the last 4/5 years without any progress---Trial Court was directed to submit report to the Registrar of Supreme Appellate Court regarding inordinate delay in conclusion of the trial, within a fortnight for perusal of the Supreme Appellate Court and order in chamber.
2010 YLR 3184 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Chaudhry ASGHAR SHAHEEN Vs Raja MUNAWAR HUSSAIN
S. 6---'Terrorism'---Determination as to whether an offence falls within the ambit of S.6 of Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997---Essentials elaborated.
2010 YLR 1861 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH MUHAMMAD ALI Vs State
S. 365-A---West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13(d)---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6(2)(e) & 7(e)---Kidnapping for ransom---Appreciation of evidence---Abductee being a principal victim had given a very comprehensive account of the incident---Cross-examination conducted by the defence against the said witness could not shatter his evidence---Such cross- examination could not even show any specific defence plea on the basis of which one could assume that said witness had been challenged thereby in such process of evidence or he deposed falsely against accused for any ill motive or vested interest, either within himself or because of his family---Other witnesses who were father and uncle of the victim had also supported the case and cross-examination conducted against them could not bring any fruitful result to the defence---Defence theory that came to light, for the first time in the process of
cross-examination that there was business rivalry between the brother-in-law of the complainant and accused, due to which accused had falsely been involved in the case, being an after-thought, was good for nothing---Rest of the witnesses, were official ones who also, had supported the case to their respective extent and their evidence was also left un-shattered in the cross-examination conducted by the defence against them on the point of kidnapping---
Certain irregularities committed by the Police in process of investigation, could hardly have an adverse effect to the extent that on the basis of which the court could take an independent view that the case of prosecution as to kidnapping was doubtful---Prosecution witnesses were trustworthy and confidence inspiring in all respect---Charge of kidnapping for ransom as framed against accused, stood well proved beyond shadow of any reasonable doubt---Conviction and sentence awarded to accused for offence of kidnapping by the Trial Court needed no interference at all---Case regarding the recovery of the T.T. pistol from accused, however, was not open to be safely held as proved up to the required standard of law-Evidence on record did not support that the said weapon was recovered by the Police from accused at the relevant time---Impugned judgment of conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court under S.365- A, P.P.C., was maintained with benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C., whereas conviction and sentence awarded to accused for the offence under S.13(d) of West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, was set aside in the interest of justice.
2010 YLR 1817 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH MUHAMMAD SADIQ THE STATE through Prosecutor General Sindh
Ss. 302 & 377---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.6---Qatl-e-amd, unnatural offence and terrorism---Accused were bailed out and their application filed under S.265-K, Cr.P.C. was also allowed by the Trial Court observing that it was not a case for cancellation of bail and that case was not to by tried by Anti-Terrorism Court---Validity---Case of prosecution was in four parts; firstly, minor boy was abducted; secondly unnatural offence was committed with him; thirdly, he was murdered; and lastly his body was concealed in bag and was thrown in Ganda Nala in order to destroy the evidence---Offences in the case definitely covered definition of S.6 of Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997---Ordinary Court, in circumstances had no jurisdiction to try the case---
Order passed by the Trial Court was set aside with the direction to file the report before the Anti-Terrorism Court having jurisdiction.
2010 MLD 1412 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH ALLAH NAWAZ Vs State
Ss. 6, 7 & 23---Explosive Substances Act (XI of 1908), Ss.3, 4 & 5---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.435, 439 & 561-A---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Possession of heavy material of explosive substance---Transfer of case from Anti-Terrorism Court to regular court---
Accused who were found carrying heavy material of explosive substance, had disclosed that they had been given a task for explosion and that they were on the way to implement their plans---Application filed by accused under S.23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 for transfer of their
case from Anti-Terrorism Court to ordinary/regular court, had been dismissed by the Anti- Terrorism Court---Validity---Neither revisional jurisdiction under Ss.435/439, Cr.P.C. nor jurisdiction under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. could be invoked to challenge and impugn an order passed by the Anti-Terrorism Court; however, that would not close the chapter---If no adequate remedy was available or provided under law, High Court could always use its constitutional authority under Art.199 of the Constitution---Discretion was always available with High Court to treat any application or proceedings, in appropriate cases, as application under Art.199 of the of Constitution---High Court, in the present case, treated revision petition as constitutional petition and decided the same ---Prima facie, from the statement of accused, it appeared that attempt to explode explosive substance was admitted---Order passed by Anti-Terrorism Court, whereby application for transfer of case to ordinary court was dismissed, could not be taken exception to in circumstances.
2010 PCrLJ 1415 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court EHSANULLAH Vs State
Ss. 302(b)/324/34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6/7---West. Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13---Qatl-e-amd and attempt to commit qatl-e-amd---Terrorism and possession of arms---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Fire shots received by the deceased and injured were from a high velocity fire-arm and not from a low velocity gun such as a Repeater, which was a shotgun for hunting birds---Spot inspection was conducted well in time which gave no time to the prosecution to plant empties of any other calibre and also sealed the chance of inclusion of any other innocent person as accused---Benefit of doubt could be extended to two co-accused out of three as the opening of fire shots by said two co-accused was a far fetched probability and their involvement could be a result of the sectarian hatred whereby the maximum number of persons of the other sect could be put to task---Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 which was a special law provided for the offences committed under S.6 of said Act, would override the provisions of general law as the offence of murder had been provided in the schedule of Special Law wherein the offence was punishable with death---In the light of the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the recoveries, the motive and the other circumstances of the case, prosecution had proved the fact of murder of the deceased and injuries sustained by four other persons---Prosecution had proved its case to the hilt against the accused---Case under S.13 of West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 was also proved against said accused; his conviction and sentence was upheld and murder reference to his extent was answered in affirmative, however benefit of doubt was extended to other two accused persons and their conviction and sentence were set aside and they could be released.
2010 PCrLJ 1402 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court SADAQAT JAN Vs State
S. 302/34---
Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII
of 1997), Ss.6/7---
West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of
1965), S.13---
Qatl-e-amd---Terrorism
and possession
of arms---Appreciation of evidence---
Benefit of doubt---Accused had been implicated for commission of offence along with two
other persons, who had been assigned equal roles without any difference---One of the prosecution witnesses had stated that she saw the accused opening fire shot at the deceased and did not charge the other accused persons---Another prosecution witness had also improved his statement recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C. regarding dying declaration of deceased wherein accused had been nominated as assailant---Statement of another witness was recorded 23 days after the occurrence who had stated that he saw the accused running away from the place of occurrence after hearing the fire shots---Statement of said witness was not confidence inspiring in the light of his delayed statement under S.161, Cr.P.C.; he was not an eye-witness of the occurrence, but he had stated that he saw one person lying in the channel after firing of shots-- -Said witness had not mentioned the presence of other witnesses at the spot---Good prima facie case did not exist against accused for his conviction on the basis of other material placed on record---Original report of Fire Arms Expert was not placed on record but a photo copy of the same was found in the file and number of the pistol mentioned therein was different as shown in the recovery memo.---Prosecution, in circumstances, had failed to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt and statements of prosecution witnesses were not worth relying- --While giving benefit of doubt to the accused, his conviction and sentence, was set aside and he was directed to be released.
2010 GBLR 550 SUPREME-APPELATE-COURT-GILGIT THE STATE Vs SADAQAT JAN
S. 302(b)---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6/7---West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13---Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art.60(13)---
Qatl-e-amd, terrorism and possessing arms---Appraisal of evidence---Trial Court convicted and sentenced accused, but Chief Court set aside judgment of the Trial Court and acquitted accused by giving him benefit of doubt---Appeal against acquittal---Prosecution had established accusation of accused beyond shadow of doubt by producing cogent and concrete evidence, which had rightly been considered by the Trial Court---Defence Counsel could not succeed to shatter the veracity of the statement of the prosecution witness who narrated facts and directly connected accused with the commission of offence---Weapon of offence, .30 bore pistol, was recovered immediately after the arrest of accused from his personal possession---In presence of recovery memo, delay in lodging of F.I.R. under S.13 of West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, had no effect at all on the merits of the main case---Crime empty shell and live cartridges were sent to ballistic expert, which were examined and found to have been fired from the pistol recovered at the instance of accused---Number and type of weapon was the same, which was shown in the recovery memo---No fabrication or alteration of recovery memo.---Version of prosecution witnesses was consistent, confidence inspiring and worthy of credence which had rightly been taken into consideration and they by no stretch of imagination, could be labelled as interested witnesses---Prosecution had substantiated the allegations against accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Case against accused, in circumstances was fit for life imprisonment---
Impugned judgment of Chief Court was set aside and that of the Trial Court was restored to meet the ends of justice.
2010 GBLR 149 SUPREME-APPELATE-COURT-GILGIT ARSHAD WALI Vs State
S.497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/118/212/216---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6/7--Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art.60(13)---Qatl-e- amd, conceal-ing the offence, harbouring offender and causing terrorism---Bail, grant of---
Occurrence was one of dark night---Prosecution had no eye-witness---Delayed recovery of weapons of offence did not connect the accused with the crime, particularly when the same, though handled by the accused, were not stated to have been used by them in the commission of the offence---Confessional statements of accused if believed to be true and correctly recorded, even then the same could not be made a basis for their conviction in the absence of any direct evidence against them on record---Concession of bail could not be withheld merely on the plea of heinousness of the offence, if the accused were otherwise entitled to grant of bail---Senior police officials had failed to conduct a fair, transparent and untainted investigation in the case---Guilt of accused needed further probe within the purview of S.497(2), Cr. P.C.---
Accused were admitted to bail in circumstances.
2010 GBLR 149 SUPREME-APPELATE-COURT-GILGIT ARSHAD WALI Vs State
S.497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/118/212/216---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6/7---Qatl-e-amd and terrorism---Bail---Heinousness of offence---Principle---Concession of bail cannot be withheld on the plea of heinousness of the offence, if the accused is otherwise found entitled to the same.
2010 GBLR 118 SUPREME-APPELATE-COURT-GILGIT THE STATE through Advocate- General Vs ASIF AHMED
S.497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/324/34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.6/7-- -Qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit qatl-e-amd causing terrorism---Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art.60(13)---Bail, cancellation of---Parties had agreed on not arguing the application on merits, if Trial Court was directed to conclude the trial within two months---Charge in the case had been framed without any delay, but trial could not be concluded due to some unavoidable circumstances and ultimately bail had been granted to accused---Prolonged delay in conclusion of trial was misuse of process of law and courts and also injustice to the parties---Trial Court was directed to conduct day to day trial, avoid adjournment without compelling reason, adopt coercive measures for attendance of witnesses and conclude the trial within two months---In case of default, complainant or the State could move a fresh application for cancellation of bail against the accused before the Trial Court for decision on merits---Petition was disposed of accordingly.
2010 PLD 52 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN SOORAT KHAN Vs ANTI- TERRORISM COURT, SIBI
S. 6---Terrorism---Meaning---"Terrorism" means the use or threat of "action" where the "action" falls within the meaning of sub-section (2) of S.6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and creates a serious risk to safety of the public or a section of the public, or is designed to frighten the general public and thereby prevents them from coming out and carrying on their lawful trade and daily business, and disrupts civil life.
2010 PCrLJ 98 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH MUZAMIL Vs State
Ss. 302, 342, 201, 337-A(i), F(i), 148 & 149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7 & 23---
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Transfer of case to regular/ordinary court---Petitioners/accused in one criminal case, had committed murder of two minor kids by way of slaughtering their throats in presence of complainant and other eye- witnesses after fastening the complainant and witnesses---Accused persons took the dead bodies of both deceased and buried those at the scene of the offence in a ditch---In second case the accused persons had committed triple murders by firing with K.Ks. on their victims and causing fire-arm injuries to prosecution witnesses---After receipt of challan, the accused filed application under S.23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 for transfer of case to Sessions Court contending that under the circumstances of the case no case of terrorism .was made out to attract the provisions of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act. 1997---Validity---Term `terrorism' had wide meaning and for the purpose of assessment as to whether sense of fear and insecurity spread amongst the public at large, the manner in which the incident took place, coupled with the place, where the incident took place were very material---Brutal act of murder at public place was sufficient to hold that by the act of the commission of murder at public place, terror would strike amongst the public at the said locality where incident took place and S.6 of Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997 would attract---Details of incident in the case had shown that by the act of the accused persons brutally killing two minor children and three other innocent persons at public place, sense of fear and insecurity amongst the public at large was created---In killing three persons by using K. Ks. at public place and injuring three prosecution witnesses, the accused had shown their brutality which had created sense of fear and insecurity amongst the persons of that locality---For the purpose of ascertaining the fact of creation of sense of fear and insecurity amongst the people at large, it was not necessary that evidence must be recorded by the court to arrive at such conclusion but the facts contained in the F.I.R. and the nature of the offence committed at the public place, were sufficient to assess as to whether the sense of fear and insecurity was created amongst the public-at-large---In the present case, the two minors had been brutally slaughtered and three were killed at public place by inflicting injuries from Kalashnikov---Application for transfer of case to ordinary/Sessions Court, was rightly dismissed by the Special Court.
2010 PCrLJ 23 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE FAWAD RASOOL Vs SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT NO.1, GUJRANWALA
Ss. 302/324/148/149/109---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6/7/23---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Application filed by the petitioner for transfer of case from the Anti-Terrorism Court to the court of ordinary jurisdiction, having been dismissed, petitioner had assailed order of dismissal in constitutional petition---Occurrence had taken place on a bridge where apart from rival party, many other people were also present---
Apart from three persons from the rival party two passersby lost their life, while 12 others suffered firearm injuries---Such was neither a private nor an isolated place where there was no risk for general public-Result of the occurrence itself had shown that apart from the deceased and injured passersby there must be many more who must have felt a sense of insecurity as a result of occurrence---Prima facie, it could not be presumed before recording of evidence, for the purposes of determining jurisdiction of the court that the act was not one of terrorism---In the present case, death of two passersby and injuries to 12 others, prima facie indicated that apart from them many others were also present at the time of occurrence, which must have created sense of insecurity in the general public---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
2010 PLD 52 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN SOORAT KHAN Vs ANTI- TERRORISM COURT, SIBI
Ss. 6 & 32---Explosive Substances Act (XI of 1908), Ss.3/4/5---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Jurisdiction---Complainant had no enmity with any person, nor had he nominated any individual in the promptly lodged F.I.R.---Explosive device was allegedly used in order to force the employees of Chamalung Security Force constituted by the Government, to give up their employment and dissuade others from joining the said Force---
Son of the complainant had allegedly been killed in the incident by stepping on a mine---Case thus fell within the definition of "terrorism" as contained in S.6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and was triable by the Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court---Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, being not applicable to Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, by virtue of S.32 thereof, reference of Trial Court to Schedule II of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, in the impugned order, was misplaced---Order of the Trial Court having the powers of Anti-Terrorism Court directing the transfer of the case to the ordinary Court of competent jurisdiction was, consequently, set aside with direction to Trial Court to proceed with the trial itself in accordance with law---
Constitutional petition was accepted accordingly.
2010 YLR 139 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE NOOR JAHAN Vs JUDGE ANTI- TERRORISM COURT BAHAWALPUR
Ss. 380/447/148/149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7 & 23---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.156 & 159---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Petitioner lodged F.I.R. for offences under Ss. 380/447/148/149, P.P.C. read with Ss. 6 & 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---During investigation eight accused persons were arrested and
when their remand papers were presented before the Judge Anti-Terrorism Court, he directed the deletion of Ss.6 & 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Anti-Terrorism Court had given findings of non-commission of terrorism after recording the statements of the witnesses, which would bring out that no element of terrorism or panic was created by accused---Words used in S.23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, were very much clear on the point that court could pass order after taking cognizance of an offence at the relevant time---Court, at the time of passing of impugned order, had not taken cognizance of the offence and no sufficient material was available on record to delete the offence---Impugned order, in circumstances was premature which was set aside with direction to decide the matter after taking cognizance of the offence with application of judicial mind after recording some evidence.
2010 SCMR 646 SUPREME-COURT SHI RAZ-UL-HAQ Vs State
S. 365-A---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6(1)(b) & 7(e)---Abduction for ransom---
Reappraisal of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Proof---Prosecution witness who witnessed incident of abduction was not examined on such aspect of the case and there was evidence of victim only---Ransom amount was not recovered from accused persons---Prosecution further alleged that accused had used credit and debit cards and lass of Rupees were taken out from the account of victim but no cogent evidence through bank officials had been produced to prove such allegation---Confinement of victim was of two days only with no allegation of torture---Sentence of death awarded to three accused persons by Trial Court was maintained by High Court---Validity---Such was not an extreme case of abduction, therefore, in such case sentence of death to three persons was harsh---Supreme Court maintained the conviction but converted sentence of death awarded to accused into imprisonment for life.
2009 PCrLJ 573 NORTHERN AREAS CHIEF COURT ITRAT HUSSAIN Vs State
S. 497---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6/7/21(D)(4)---Bail, grant of---Accused had been arrested soon after the occurrence in January, 2005---After his arrest the trial could not be concluded within a reasonable time due to non-availability of Anti-Terrorism Court's Judge for a considerable period---When the trial came close to pronouncement of judgment, one of the alleged absconding accused in the same case was arrested---Ultimately, the Judge had no option except to re-start the trial, pending judgment against accused---Accused, in circumstances, had to wait for conclusion of trial against the newly arrested accused---No provision existed in the relevant or general law that judgment could partially be announced against those who had faced trial---Plea of hardship, in circumstances found existed in favour of accused---Co--accused, who had been attributed similar role, had already been released on bail by Chief Court---Rule of consistency demanded that accused too was entitled for the same treatment.
2009 MLD 1198 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH ALI HASSAN Vs State
Ss. 6(2)(e), 19(12) & 25--Conviction in absentia, remedy for---Two options were available, in law, to a person convicted in absentia; he could request the Trial Court to set aside his conviction under S.19(12) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 by showing that he did not abscond and could also file appeal under S.25 of the said Act---Filing of application under S.19(12) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was not an indispensable condition for filing appeal under S.25 of the Act--Powers of the Appellate Court were wider than the powers of the Trial Court in the matter of setting aside conviction in absentia---Trial Court, after setting aside the conviction, would proceed to try accused in his presence; while the Appellate Court after setting aside the conviction could remand the case to the Trial Court for fresh trial or could even acquit him on merits---If a case was fit for acquittal on merits, it would be futile to conduct fresh trial---If a person convicted in absentia was entitled to acquittal on merits, he could not be forced to undergo the botheration of trial---Under S.25 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, nothing was to suggest that a person convicted and sentenced in absentia, could not file appeal without first making application under S.19(12) of said Act.
2009 SCMR 1210 SUPREME-COURT Maulana ABDUL AZIZ Vs State
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.448/427/452/506/147/149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6/7 & 21-C(4)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Bail, grant of---Sufficient incriminating material was lacking prima facie connecting the accused with the commission of the alleged offence---Presumption of innocence of accused is always paramount irrespective of the heinousness of the alleged offences---No plausible justification could be given as to why Chowkidar of the Library had failed to nominate the accused in the F.I.R. lodged by him, but implicated him in his supplementary statement---No prima facie case was made out against the accused---Impugned order of High Court refusing bail to accused being laconic could not be kept intact, as the case fell within the ambit of further inquiry---It was not known how the alleged offences were abetted or facilitated by the accused in the absence of any evidence in this regard on record---Section 21-C(4) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was not applicable to the case of accused---Submission of challan after a lapse of eight months in the Court by itself was sufficient to grant bail to accused---Ipsi dixit of police regarding guilt or innocence of accused could not be depended upon, as the same would be determined by Trial Court on the basis of evidence, yet to be collected---Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances.
2009 PLD 11 SUPREME-COURT BASHIR AHMED Vs MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE
Ss. 6, 7 & 8---Determination as to whether an offence falls within the ambit of S.6, Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997---Essentials.
2009 YLR 297 ISLAMABAD Moulana ABDUL AZIZ Vs State
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.427, 448, 452, 506, 147 & 149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7 & 21-D(iv)---Bail, refusal of---Complainant was Chowkidar of the Library, which the student had forcibly occupied---Complainant was quite an independent person and he was not a police personnel---Serious efforts were made for the restoration of possession peacefully- --Accused was the person who was Incharge of Lal Masjid and Jamia Hafza and all the students of said Madrasa were under his control and they were ready to go to any extent in compliance of his order and as such he was in commanding position---Situation, which was created at the time of occurrence, had created a panic/insecurity in the people of area---Window pans were broken during that occurrence and loss was caused to the library, which was a public property-- -Whole area where said library was situated, was presenting a picture of 'No go area' and people of that area were feeling sense of insecurity, and they could not even purchase the things of daily use and all that had made the case, falling under the purview of S.6 of Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997---Contention of counsel for accused that S. 452, P.P.C. did not fall under the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr. P. C. had no force---Each case should be decided on its own merits---Even bail could be refused in the case which did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497, Cr. P. C. ---Principle of consistency was also not applicable in the case, as the cases in which bail had been granted, were different from the present case, on facts and merits---
Deeper appreciation of evidence could not be made while hearing the bail application, but only tentative assessment of material collected by the prosecution against accused, could be made-- -Accused had been implicated in the case, on the basis of supplementary statement made by Chowkidar of the Library, who was a relevant person---No mala fide or ill-will had come on record, to falsely implicate accused in the case, question of false implication did not arise---
Challan in the case had been submitted before the court of competent jurisdiction---Accused having failed to make out the case for bail, his bail application was dismissed.
2009 PCrLJ 107 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Mst. RUBINA Vs State
Ss. 6 & 7---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.561-A & 439---Applicant/victim girl had made allegations that she was abducted, kept in illegal confinement and gang raped by accused persons nominated in the F.I.R.---Alleged victim was referred to Medical Superintendent for her medical check-up and she was duly examined by Gynaecologist and from the medical report it had fully been proved that applicant was gang--raped---Counsel for applicant/victim girl alleged that accused persons, who were very influential, had obtained a report from Investigating Officer for exonerating themselves---Investigating Officer submitted report under S.173, Cr.P.C. before Magistrate for the disposal of case in "B" Class---Investigating Officer, instead of helping the poor innocent young student orphan girl, mixed up with accused persons and tried to declare accused persons innocent---Investigating Officer for ulterior motives spoiled the case of prosecution and on the contrary implicated the orphan young girl for registration of case against her---Addl. Advocate-General also opposed impugned order of the Magistrate submitting that Investigating Officer had wilfully and deliberately conducted dishonest investigation and failed to perform his legal duties---Criminal revision application was converted into application under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. and allowing same impugned order was set aside---
Immediate indulgence was solicited from R.P.O. concerned for assigning investigation of the case to an officer not below the rank of D.S.P.---Keeping in view the gravity of offence Court directed that case be challaned after honest investigation to Anti-Terrorism Court as provisions of Ss.6 & 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, appeared to be attracted.
2009 PLD 265 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH JANAN alias JANO CHANDIO Vs State
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/353/148/149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997) Ss.6/7---Bail, refusal of-'-Accused persons were nominated in the F.I.R. with specific role of causing firearm injuries to deceased---Prosecution witnesses in their statements under S.161, Cr.P.C. had fully supported the version of complainant given by him in the F.I.R.---Medical evidence also supported the version of complainant party---Recovery of kalashnikov was from one of accused persons, and pistol from the other---No enmity with the Police had been suggested or pleaded by accused---Sufficient material was available against accused persons to suggest that there were reasonable grounds to believe that accused were connected with the alleged offence---Counsel for accused had failed to make out a case of further inquiry---
Contention of counsel for accused persons that one of co-accused was found and let off, had no force as said co-accused had been shown as absconder in the charge-sheet-Deeper appreciation of material at bail stage was deprecated---Bail application was dismissed, in circumstances.
2009 PCrLJ 346 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Rana SHAHBAZ RIAZ Vs SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT, FAISALABAD
Ss. 6, 7 & 23---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/109/324/148/149---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Sending back challan to the court of ordinary jurisdiction--Petitioner/complainant had challenged the validity of order passed by the Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court whereby an application moved by accused under S.23 of Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997 for sending the challan to the court of ordinary jurisdiction was accepted and the challan was sent to the court of ordinary jurisdiction---Validity---Under provisions of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, it was not necessary that the commission of murder must have created panic and terror among the people---Courts had only to see whether the terrorist act was such which would have the tendency to create sense of fear or insecurity in the minds of the people or any section of the society---Court had to see the psychological impact created by such act upon the minds of the people and it was not necessary that the said act must have taken place within the view of general public so as to bring it within the encompass of the Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997---Even an act having taken place in a barbaric and gruesome manner, if it had created fear and insecurity, would. certainly come within the purview of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Person would commit a terrorist act, if in order to or if the effect of his actions would be to strike terror or create a sense of fear and insecurity in the people or any section of the people---In the present case occurrence had taken place on the main road and in the main
Bazar in front of Jamia Masjid in which murder of three innocent persons had been committed allegedly by the accused persons by firing with kalashnikovs and the complainant had also been injured , which must have caused shock, fear and insecurity among the people of the vicinity---If no crime empty was recovered from the place of occurrence at the time of spot inspection by the police, it could not be said that firing was not made and that occurrence had not taken place---All three deceased persons had received three to seven injuries on their persons and complainant had also sustained two fire-arm injuries on his person---Impugned order was set aside in circumstances.
2009 MLD 1157 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN ALI DAD Vs State
S.4---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6(1)(c), (n), (2) & 7(h)---Appreciation of evidence---
One of prosecution witnesses had stated that on hearing explosion he found accused running from the place of occurrence who was apprehended by other Police Officials---Other prosecution witness had not supported the case of said witness---Accused could not be held guilty for causing explosion without any other evidence on record connecting accused with the commission of offence, merely on . the ground that he was seen running away---Conviction could only be based on tangible evidence implicating accused in the commission of offence beyond any shadow of doubt, because it was natural for the people to leave hurriedly the place where explosion occurred---Suspicion howsoever strong could not take place of legal proof---
No conviction, in circumstances could be sustained on mere suspicion---Prosecution had failed to prove charge against accused---Accused was acquitted of the charge and was released.
2009 MLD 1198 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH ALI HASSAN Vs State
S.6(2)(e)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.356-A---Appreciation of evidence---Out of the two abductees, one could not be traced and the other did not implicate either co-accused in whose presence the trial was conducted or accused who was tried in absentia---Evidence of two Police Officers, who claimed to have identified the dacoits, was not believed by High Court in appeal filed by co-accused'--After acquittal of co-accused by the High Court, conviction in absentia of accused, who had a better case for acquittal, could not be sustained on same evidence---No useful purpose would be served to examine the main witnesses again---State counsel was also of the same opinion---Conviction and sentence of accused recorded in his absentia, were set aside, and he was acquitted.
2009 MLD 793 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFP AYUB KHAN Vs State
Ss.468/471---West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), Ss.13/14---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Appreciation of evidence---Terrorism---Scope---Scope of terrorism had been explained in various clauses of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Action which created a serious
risk to 'safety of public was terrorism under clause (i) of subsection (2) of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Transportation of a huge quantity of illicit arms and ammunition, could be, by no stretch of imagination, for any lawful activities, peaceful purpose or welfare of the public---Only conclusion which could be drawn was that such transportation involved serious risk to safety of public which was already under wave of extreme terrorism---Occurrence, in the present case, took place at a place where many disinterested persons were present around who were not cited as witnesses of recovery---People did not co-operate and did not consent to be cited as witnesses of recovery; in terrorism and narcotics cases, because it invited annoyance of people relating to drug mafia and terrorists which they could not afford to face---Police witnesses; in such circumstances, were good witnesses, unless mala fide was established against them---In the present case, statements of police witnesses were neither contradictory nor infirm, nor having any inherent flaw---Statements of prosecution witnesses' relating to recovery in the case, were consistent on material points and intrinsically rang true---Said witnesses were rightly relied upon by the Trial Court---Accused was acquitted for offence under Ss.468/471, P.P.C. and S.14 of West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, but conviction of accused under S.7(h) Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997 as well as under S.13 of West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965 was maintained.
2008 PLD 260 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE Vs
MUHAMMAD ISMAIL
S. 526---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302 & 324/34---West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13(d)---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.6---Transfer of case---Scope---Act of terrorism and jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court---If an offender with an intention to strike terror in the people or any section of the people etc. would commit scheduled offence, then only he would be subject to jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court---In order to determine as to whether an offence would fall within the ambit of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, it would be essential to have a glance over the allegations made in F.I.R., record of case and surrounding circumstances---Whether a particular act was an act of terrorism or not, the motivation, object, design and purpose behind such act was to be seen---Whether said act had created a sense of fear and insecurity in the public or in any section of public or community or in any sect---
Offence alleged in the present case had taken place because of the previous enmity and private vendetta---Facts of the case revealed that alleged sprinkling of the spirit on the person of the victim was within the boundary walls of the house of applicant and was not in public---Element of striking terror for creating sense of fear and insecurity in the people or any section of the people was not made discernible in the F.I.R. and for that matter on the record of the case as a whole---Application for transfer of case to the Anti-Terrorism Court filed under S.526, Cr.P.C. was dismissed, in circumstances.
2008 MLD 242 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE SHAHBAZ NOOR Vs State
Ss.324, 506, 148 & 149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6 & 7---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Quashing of F.I.R.---Petitioner had sought quashing of F.I.R. or in the alternate deletion of S.324, P.P.C. and S.7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 on the ground that from the plain reading of the F.I.R., no case under the said provisions was made out and said sections had been added only with a view to magnifying the offence and making the same non-bailable---On prosecution's own showing, the Golf Course in question was being constructed at a far off place away from residential area and the main road---Apart from that if murderous assault had been launched in the manner as alleged in the F.I.R., then some damage ought to have been caused---F.I.R., mentioned that petitioners/accused and their co-accused, who were carrying dangerous fire-arms, had resorted to firing, but strangely enough no physical harm, whatsoever, had been caused by such firing---Case did not attract the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---No statement was on record of any of the foreign or Pakistani workers, who had allegedly been scared away to support the claim of prosecution---
Applicability of S.324, P.P.C. also did not appear to be made out for the simple reason that no harm was caused, though petitioners were allegedly armed with formidable weapons---Neither S.7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 nor S.324, P.P.C. was applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.
2008 PLD 343 SUPREME-COURT NISAR Vs State
----S. 10(4)---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.6(b)---Capital punishment, awarding of---Duty of Court stated. The Courts of law are expected and required to decide the cases on the basis of evidence adduced, without being overawed by emotions and sentiments. Nevertheless, extraordinary care and caution is to be taken while dealing with the offences of grave nature, attracting capital punishment, which could not be awarded unless charge against the accused is proved by leading absolutely credible, trustworthy and unimpeachable evidence.
2008 MLD 840 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE MATI-UR-REHMAN
ANTI-TERRORISM COURT, FAISALABAD
Ss.395/353/324/186/148/149---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 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.
2008 PLD 487 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH HUZOOR BUX Vs State
Ss. 365-A/392/353/324/337-A(i)---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.435/439---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Facts of the ease did not provide any suitable and appropriate circumstance for exercise of powers as required under Ss.435 and 439, Cr.P.C. and, as such, Revision Application was not maintainable, though the same could be converted into a constitutional petition---Anti-Terrorism Court vide impugned order had dismissed the application of accused for transfer of the case to an ordinary Sessions Court---Validity---For determining he issue whether the offence was triable under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, or not nature of the offence had to be seen in the light of the averments that how the same had been committed along with the particular place of incident and the time and further that' by that act a sense of fear and insecurity in the society had been created in the minds of the people at large or not---Incident in the present case had taken place at odd hours of the night near a graveyard---Complainant was neither going to be kidnapped for the particular purpose of ransom, nor any demand for ransom had been made so far---Some cash and a Mobile phone were allegedly robbed from the complainant---Prima facie, case against accused was of abduction falling under S.365, P.P.C.---Matter, thus, did not fall within the ambit of S.6 punishable under S.7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and the same was not triable by the Anti-Terrorism Court---Revision petition was consequently converted into a constitutional petition in the interest of justice and impugned order was set aside with the direction to Anti-Terrorism Court to transfer the case to the ordinary Sessions Court for trial in accordance with law---Petition was allowed accordingly.
2008 YLR 1414 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE ALI RAZA alias KALOO Vs State
Ss.6 & 7(c)---Terrorism---Case against accused was not a case of terrorism but of police encounter and police had given the occurrence the shape of terrorism---Provisions of section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, being not applicable, accused were acquitted of the charge under S.7 (c) of the said Act---Appeal was disposed of accordingly.
2008 PLD 487 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH HUZOOR BUX Vs State
S. 6---"Terrorist act"---Meaning and object---"Terrorism" is to be determined from the criminal act designed to create a sense of fear or insecurity in the minds of the general public disturbing even tempo of life and tranquillity of the society---Other ordinary crimes are not to be dealt under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Physical harm to the victim is not the sole criterion to
determine the question of terrorism, as motive should be the key word or the objective of the act---When an offence is committed without the background of any enmity and manner and method of the commission of the offence is such that the public at large individually and collectively feel apprehension that any one of them can at any time be subjected to similar act of brutality, disturbing the physical and mental peace and tranquillity of the people, giving impression' that the writ of the Government has been rendered ineffective, with the result that nobody is safe in pursuing ordinary pursuits of life, then such act certainly amounts to an act of "terrorism" as defined in S.6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
2008 YLR 1414 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE ALI RAZA alias KALOO Vs State
Ss. 324 & 353---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.7 (c) & 6---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.561-A---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---One accused had not filed an appeal challenging his convictions and sentences passed by Trial Court and High Court while exercising its suo motu jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. had also dealt with his case---
Occurrence had taken place because of police encounter---Accused were named in the F.I.R. and they had caused eight injuries on the person of a police officer who had supported the prosecution case and his statement was corroborated by another prosecution witness---False implication of accused was out of question due to non-existence of any enmity between the police officials and the accused---No specific injury had been attributed to any of the accused---
Convictions of accused under Ss. 324, P.P.C. and 353, P.P.C. were, therefore, maintained, but their sentence under S. 324, P.P.C. was reduced from 10 years' R.I each in circumstances.
2008 SCMR 71 SUPREME-COURT ABDUL MAJEED Vs State
Ss. 302(b) & 395---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6(i), 7 & 6(3)---West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13(e)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Name of accused did not appear in the F.I.R., lodged after an unexplained delay of six hours---Accused was arrested after two months whereafter identification parade had been conducted through witnesses under the supervision of Naib Tehsildar who had conducted investigation as well---
Conviction and sentences of accused were urged to have been based on no evidence and rather on inadmissible evidence, which could not be treated as inclusive warranting a sentence on capital charge---Leave to appeal was granted to accused for reappraisal of the evidence in order to ascertain whether the principles for safe administration of criminal justice, as laid down by Supreme Court, were fully adhered to.
2008 SCMR 1631 SUPREME-COURT TARIQ MAHMOOD Vs State
Ss. 302/324/148 & 149/341/506---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6/7---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Transfer of case to the Court of ordinary jurisdiction was assailed
by the complainant---Case of accused who had clean past rested on a lower pedestal than that of terrorists and sectarian criminals who killed innocent persons either to weaken the State or to cause damage to the parties of the rival sect---Terrorists or the sectarian killers did not have any personal grudge or motive against the innocent victims---In the present case admittedly a feud existed between the parties over a piece of land prior to the occurrence---No independent evidence was available on record to show that the act of accused led to striking of terror among the masses---Site plan had denied the claim of the complainant that the occurrence had taken place in a "Bazaar" which was heavily populated---Criminal cases should be tried and decided by the Courts having plenary jurisdiction until and unless extraordinary circumstances existed justifying the trial of the case by special Courts---Impugned order did not call for any interference---Leave to appeal was declined to complainant accordingly.
2008 PCrLJ 1706 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Hafiz MUHAMMAD SALEHEEN Vs SPECIAL JUDGE ANTI-TERRORISM, RAWALPINDI
Ss. 6(1)(b), 7 & 28---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.337-A(iii), 147 & 149---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Transfer of case from Anti-Terrorism Court to Court of Session---Persons who were stated to have initiated occurrence, had come to offer their prayer, at the spur of moment were enraged by the word of caution by the complainant/petitioner to them in the matter of reciting `Kalma' loudly while other people were still offering their prayers, which ultimately led to scuffle resulting in injuries recorded under S.337-A(iii), P.P.C. to some persons---Section 6(1), P,P.C. did not refer to a design and intention to coerce and intimidate a particular sect---Design and intention was further clarified by the definition of word `sectarian' and `sectarian hatred' as given in S.2(u)(v) of Anti- Terrorism Act, 1997---Such an intention or design was not apparent on the face of the F.I.R.---
Constitutional petition was dismissed.
2008 PCrLJ 1645 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH REHMAT ALI Vs State
Ss. 302, 324, 353 & 354/34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6(2)(a), (m) & 7---
Appreciation of evidence---No motive was available for the murder in the case---No independent witness from the locality was examined to prove the prosecution case through reliable and confidence-inspiring evidence---Eye-witnesses were interested witnesses and had motive to implicate accused---Ocular account was not confidence-inspiring and trustworthy---
Shaky evidence of the eye-witnesses could not be relied upon for recording the capital punishment, when their evidence was not corroborated by independent and reliable source---
In absence of clear and straightforward evidence, doubtful narration of the prosecution witnesses did not carry weight to record conviction---Accused and co-accused, after being arrested, were not put to identification parade, though they were produced before the Magistrate for remand purpose during investigation---Police party was not in a position to identify the culprits at the time of the occurrence--Later when statement of the complainant
under S.154, Cr.P.C. was recorded, he had given the names of accused involved in different dacoity cases, but no description of accused or that of co-accused was available on record---
Injured could not be conveniently held that he sustained fire-arm injury at the hands of accused for two reasons; firstly that he being not traceable could not be examined; secondly that none of the prosecution witnesses had come forward to support the prosecution case to the extent of injury sustained by the injured---Even Doctor was not examined---Testimony of the police officials could not be the basis of the evidence---Arrest of accused was highly doubtful and from the circumstances a reasonable doubt could be drawn that defence evidence could be most probable---Impugned judgment of the Trial Court, awarding conviction and sentence to accused was set aside, in circumstances and accused was ordered to be released.
2008 SCMR 71 SUPREME-COURT ABDUL MAJEED Vs State
Ss. 302(b) & 395---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6(i), 7 & 6(3)---West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13(e)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Name of accused did not appear in the F.I.R., lodged after an unexplained delay of six hours---Accused was arrested after two months whereafter identification parade had been conducted through witnesses under the supervision of Naib Tehsildar who had conducted investigation as well---
Conviction and sentences of accused were urged to have been based on no evidence and rather on inadmissible evidence, which could not be treated as inclusive warranting a sentence on capital charge---Leave to appeal was granted to accused for reappraisal of the evidence in order to ascertain whether the principles for safe administration of criminal justice, as laid down by Supreme Court, were fully adhered to.