| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2005 SLG 1933 2005 SLD 1933 2005 PLD 530 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 1212 of 2004, Civil Petitions Nos. 2479-L and 320-L of 2004, decided on 8th February, 2005.
NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, C.J., JAVED IQBAL AND ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JJ
Munir Ahmed Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant (in C.A. No. 1212 of 2004). Raja Muhammad Arif, Advocate Supreme Court for Responder No. 1 (in C. A. No. 1212 of 2004). M.A. Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 320L of 2004).
Civil Appeal No. 1212 of 2004, Civil Petitions Nos. 2479-L and 320-L of 2004, decided on 8th February, 2005.
NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, C.J., JAVED IQBAL AND ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, JJ
Munir Ahmed Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant (in C.A. No. 1212 of 2004). Raja Muhammad Arif, Advocate Supreme Court for Responder No. 1 (in C. A. No. 1212 of 2004). M.A. Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (in C.P. No. 320L of 2004).
Mirza SHAUKAT BAIG and others/ers
VS
SHAHID JAMIL and others
Law:
Section:
(a) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)--- ----S. 6(1)(b)(c)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Leave to appeal had already been granted in another case wherein the question pertaining to the jurisdiction of Special Judge under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, in terms of S.6(1)(b) or (c) was involved and in order to avoid conflicting s leave to appeal was granted in the present case as well. Muhammad Farooq v. Ibrar PLD 2004 SC 917 ref. (b) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)--- ----S. 6---"Terrorism"---Meaning---When an offence falls within scope and ambit of S.6 of the Act---Principles---Interpretation of S.6, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Section 6, of the Act is exhaustive and is capable enough to meet all kinds of "terrorism" and does not revolve around the word "designed to" as used in S.6(1)(b) of the Act or mens rea but the key word is "action" on the basis whereof it can be adjudged as to whether the alleged offence falls within the scope of S.6 of the Act or otherwise---Word "designed to" can be equated with words wilfully, knowingly and deliberately---Significance and the import of word "action" cannot be minimized and requires interpretation in a broader perspective---Act is meant for the internal security of the country having no concern with the "terrorism" prevailing at global level---"Terrorism" means the use or threat of "action" where the "action" falls within the meaning of S.6(2) of the Act and creates a serious risk to safety of the public or a section of 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---Such act shall amount to terrorism as enumerated in S.6 of the Act---Court cannot pick and choose one or two sentences or a few words for academic purpose and their scholarly interpretation by ignoring the Objects and Reasons for the promulgation of the Act and its Preamble---"Intention"---Role of, in determining the act of terrorism---Section 6 creates a statutory offence and hence the question of knowledge or mens rea is immaterial if in any case the legislature has omitted to prescribe a particular mental…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492