| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2017 SLG 2791 2017 SLD 2791 2017 PLD 653 |
Sindh High Court
Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Appeals Nos. 255, 256, 257, 260 and 261 of 2015, decision Dated: 17-06-2017. hearing Dated: 16-06-2017.
SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI, JUSTICE ABDUL MAALIK GADDI, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: S. Rashid Ali, Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Assistant Prosecutor General, Sindh. Abdul Razzak and Qadir Khan Mandokhel, Amici curiae.
Special Criminal Anti-Terrorism Appeals Nos. 255, 256, 257, 260 and 261 of 2015, decision Dated: 17-06-2017. hearing Dated: 16-06-2017.
SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI, JUSTICE ABDUL MAALIK GADDI, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: S. Rashid Ali, Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Assistant Prosecutor General, Sindh. Abdul Razzak and Qadir Khan Mandokhel, Amici curiae.
RIZWAN AHMED QURESHI AND OTHERS
VS
THE STATE AND OTHERS
Law: Anti Terrorism Act, 1997
Section: 6,7
Law: Telegraph Act, 1885
Section: 25-B
Law: Sindh Arms Act, 2013
Section: 23(i)-A
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 34,353,385,386
(a) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)--- ----Ss. 6 & 7---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.353, 385, 386 & 34---Telegraph Act (XIII of 1885), S.25-B---Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), S.23(i)-A---Terrorism, Bhatta, Extortion, recovery of weapon---Police encounter---Proof---Appreciation of evidence---Accused persons faced trial for demanding Bhatta by issuing a slip to complainant and also made threatening telephone calls---Accused persons were convicted by Trial Court and sentenced variously maximum up to imprisonment for five years---Validity---Handwriting on Bhatta slip was not got matched not voice was identified---No confessional statements of accused persons was on record---Names of accused persons were not mentioned in the FIR and they were supposed to be produced before Magistrate for holding identification parade but no such parade was held---First Information Report though showed that police encounter took place for few minutes in-between-police and accused persons but neither any damage was caused to the police vehicle nor any injury was caused to any police official---Such fact remained in mystery and created doubt in prosecution case---Police officials narrated different stories in their statements regarding alleged raid, seizure, recovery and property shown in Court and the same could not be safely relief upon for conviction of accused persons---Prosecution failed to prove its case against accused persons and Trial Court did not appreciate evidence properly---High Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court and all accused persons were acquitted of the charge---Appeal was allowed accordingly. Muhammad Akram v. The State 2009 SCMR 230 rel. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 439---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6 & 7---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 353, 385, 386 & 34---Telegraph Act (XIII of 1885), S.25-B---Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), S.23(i)-A---Terrorism, Bhatta, recovery of weapon---Supervisory jurisdiction and revisional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Appeal, non-filing of---Benefit of doubt---Accused was convicted by Trial Court and sentenced variously maximum up to imprisonment for five…
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