Law:

Section:

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302, 324, 34 & 109---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7, 19(2)(10) & 21-L---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.353---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention, abetment, act of terrorism---Trial in absentia---Appreciation of evidence---Trial in absentia under S.19(10) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was a departure from the normal procedure of trial of a criminal case---Fair trial was an inherent right of an accused guaranteed by Constitution, as well as by Chapter-II of Gilgit-Baltistan Self-Governance and Empowerment Order, 2009; which had stipulated that trial in absentia of accused would be violation of his Fundament Rights---Accused, in the present case, was tried in absentia and no charge was framed against him---After arrest of accused, instead of sending him to judicial lock up, he was handed over to joint investigation team for further investigation---Challan against accused was submitted in the Anti-Terrorism Court and instead of framing the charge, Trial Court opted to decide application of accused under S.19(12) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and upheld the sentence awarded to him in absentia---Held, conviction of accused in the case, was handed down against him without following the mandatory provision of law and without affording an opportunity of hearing to accused---When after investigation challan was submitted before the Trial Court, the Trial Court was bound to frame the charge and afford a fair opportunity of defence to accused, which had not been done---Provisions of S.19(10) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, were a departure from general law and if the conviction had to be recorded in absentia, the Trial Court must adhere and observe the procedure provided therein in letter and spirit---In the present case, particulars of accused were recorded in a casual and lethargic manner, and it could not be said with exactitude that process of law was duly and properly sent on proper address of accused---Stance taken by accused that he was unaware of any proceedings against him, was to be accepted as correct---When there were two possibilities before the court, the one which favoured…

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