Law:

Section:

(a) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)-------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…