Case Details

Citation(s)
2023 SLG 1039 2023 PCRLJ 757 2023 SLD 1039
Sindh High Court
Criminal Revision Application No. D-16 of 2020, decided on 4th March, 2021 Date hearing: 4th March, 2021..
AFTAB AHMED GORAR AND FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, JJ

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

FAIZ MUHAMMAD PITAFI and another--Applicants

VS

The STATE

Law: Anti Terrorism Act, 1997

Section: 23,6

(a) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)--- ----Ss. 23 6---Terrorism---Power to transfer cases to regular courts---Communal violence---Scope---Accused persons assailed the rejection of their plea for transfer of case to Sessions Court---Complainant had categorically stated in the body of FIR that incident had taken place due to enmity between two communities in which one person had already lost his life---Deceased was a renowned advocate of the locality and his murder might have created a sense of insecurity amongst the legal fraternity but neither murder of the deceased was caused due to his activities as an advocate nor it was done within or around the courthouse, wherein the deceased was practicing as an advocate---Only a small group from each community was involved in enmity as such it was a reason to declare the matter as a personal vendetta---Lest there was a mass scale conflict between two communities, it would not amount to personal rivalry and in such a situation it might be declared an act of terrorism---Since the incident in the case was motivated on account of a pre-existing enmity; therefore, the same was to be tried as a regular sessions case instead of an anti-terrorism case---Impugned order was set aside. (b) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)--- ----S. 23---Power to transfer cases to regular courts---Scope---High Court observed that it was least necessary to record evidence before passing an order about the jurisdiction of the Trial Court, it was against the scheme of law---Case had to be decided at the very initial stage on the basis of available material whether offence pertained to the ambit of terrorism or not---If the court was satisfied that the offence needed to be tried by the regular criminal court, such order should be passed immediately and if court decides otherwise, then the matter was to be tried by an Anti-Terrorism Court and after trial, the final verdict is to be pronounced by the same Court. Ali Gohar and others v. Pervaiz Ahmed and others PLD 2020 SC 427 rel. (c) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)--- ----S. 6---Terrorism---Scope---Act of terrorism not only depends upon the gruesome, brutality, violence and ruthlessness but it…
🔒
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