| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2023 SLG 513 2023 SLD 513 2023 PCRLJ 553 |
Sindh High Court, Sukkur Bench
C.Ps. Nos. D-596, D-135 and Criminal Bail A. No. 35 of 2020, decided on 28th October, 2020. Date of hearing: 7th October, 2020.
FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI AND KHADIM HUSSAIN TUNIO, JJ
Muhammad Ali Napar for Petitioner/Applicant. Nisar Ahmed Bahmbhro for the Complainant. Zulfiqar Ali Jatoi, A.P.G. for the State.
C.Ps. Nos. D-596, D-135 and Criminal Bail A. No. 35 of 2020, decided on 28th October, 2020. Date of hearing: 7th October, 2020.
FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI AND KHADIM HUSSAIN TUNIO, JJ
Muhammad Ali Napar for Petitioner/Applicant. Nisar Ahmed Bahmbhro for the Complainant. Zulfiqar Ali Jatoi, A.P.G. for the State.
SAJJAD ALI and others---Petitioners
VS
ABDUL RAUF and others-----Respondents
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302
Law: Anti Terrorism Act, 1997
Section: 6
(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-----S. 302---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 6---Qatl-i-amd---Terrorism---Personal enmity---Scope---Allegation against accused persons was that they entered on the land of complainant party, asked them as to why they had failed to pay the extortion money and ultimately caused hatchet and dagger blows to one of the complainant party, which resulted in his death---Occurrence neither reflected any act of terrorism nor was it a sectarian matter, instead the murder in question was committed owing to previous enmity between the parties---Where a murder was committed solely on the pretext of personal enmity, such a murder had no nexus with the provisions of S. 6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and was not triable under the same---Allegations of aerial firing did not appear to be a case of terrorism as again the motive of the case was personal vendetta---Intention of the accused did not depict or manifest any act of terrorism as contemplated by the provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Case was triable under the court of ordinary jurisdiction as the prosecution had failed to establish that the accused persons intended to create terror through their actions--- Constitutional petition was allowed and the case was entrusted to Sessions Judge---Constitutional petition was allowed. (b) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)--- ----S. 6---Terrorism---Motive---Scope---Motive and object behind the commission of a crime can be taken as a distinguishing factor in order to determine whether an offence falls within the jurisdiction of a terrorism court or a court of ordinary jurisdiction. Province of Punjab through Secretary Punjab Public Prosecution Department and another v. Muhammad Rafiq and others PLD 2018 SC 178 and Bashir Ahmed v. Muhammad Siddique and others PLD 2009 SC 11 ref. Ghulam Hussain and others v. The State and others PLD 2020 SC 61 and Ali Gohar and others v. Pervaiz Ahmed and others (Cr. Petition No. 230 of 2019 and Cr. Misc. Application No.301 of 2019) rel. ORDER KHADIM HUSSAIN TUNIO, J.---Through captioned petition, petitioner has called in question the order dated 20.05.2020, passed by learned Judge Anti-Terrorism Court,…
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