Case Details

Citation(s)
2012 SLG 2589 2012 SLD 2589 2012 YLR 2448
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 6371/BWP of 2011, decided on 21st March, 2012
MUHAMMAD QASIM KHAN AND SYED IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN SHAH, JJ
Muhammad Sharif Bhatti for Petitioner. Syed Asim Ali Bokhari for
Respondents Nos. 2 to 6. Naveed Hussain Chaudhary A.A.G. for
Respondent No. 1

MUHAMMAD SHARIF

VS

JUDGE, ANTITERRORISIM COURT and 5 others

Law:

Section:

(a) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)--- ----S. 17---Powers of Anti-Terrorism Court with respect to other offences---Scope---Anti-Terrorism' Court has the power to try non-scheduled offence only when it is trying a scheduled offence, i.e., scheduled and non-scheduled offences can be tried together in one and the same trial---Such power shall not be available to the Anti-Terrorism Court when it is not trying any scheduled offence---Once the Anti-Terrorism Court after having tried the offence finds that the scheduled offence is not made out, then in terms of S.23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, it will have no jurisdiction to pass any and it will have to transfer the case to the ordinary court. (b) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)--- ----Ss. 17, 23 & 7---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.365-A/302---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitution petition---Abduction for ransom, qatl-e-amd---Anti-Terrorism Court vide impugned order had sent the case to the court or ordinary jurisdiction for decision-Validity-Anti-Terrorism Court had tried the offences and formed the opinion that a case of scheduled offence under S.365-A, P.P.C. had not been made out---After having formed a different opinion in terms of S.23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, said court had no jurisdiction to pass any final in the trial and it had the only option to transfer the case to the court of ordinary jurisdiction, as provided under S.23 of the said Act---Scope of S.23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, could not be limited to a specific point of trial, rather by use of word "cognizance" which includes trial, the Legislature was cognizant of the fact that in some cases (like the present one) the question of jurisdiction might be properly decided after recording of some evidence---Impugned order, thus, did not suffer from any procedural error, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional defect and the same being perfectly in accordance with law was maintained---Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly. 2003 SCMR 472; PLD 2005 SC 530; 2005 PCr.LJ 941 and 2011 PCr.LJ 411 ref. (c) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)--- ----S. 23---Power to transfer cases to regular court---Scope---Scope of…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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