| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2021 SLG 1945 2021 SLD 1945 2021 PLJ 1075 |
Lahore High Court
Crl. As. Nos. 9249, 9248, 38981 of 2019, 249929 of 2018, 50221, 25426, 62906 of 2019 and 9637 of 2017, decided on 11.11.2019, Date of hearing: 11.11. 2019.
MUHAMMAD QASIM KHAN, JUSTICE, ASJAD, JAVAID GHURAL, JUSTICE.
Mr. Fida Hussain Rana, Advocate for Appellants (in Crl. As. Nos.9249 & 9248 of 2019). Mr. Muhammad Arshad Bhatti, Advocate for Appellant (in Crl. A. No. 38981/2019). Rai Bashir Ahmad, Advocate for Appellant (in Crl. A. No. 249929 of 2018). Mr. Muhammad
Crl. As. Nos. 9249, 9248, 38981 of 2019, 249929 of 2018, 50221, 25426, 62906 of 2019 and 9637 of 2017, decided on 11.11.2019, Date of hearing: 11.11. 2019.
MUHAMMAD QASIM KHAN, JUSTICE, ASJAD, JAVAID GHURAL, JUSTICE.
Mr. Fida Hussain Rana, Advocate for Appellants (in Crl. As. Nos.9249 & 9248 of 2019). Mr. Muhammad Arshad Bhatti, Advocate for Appellant (in Crl. A. No. 38981/2019). Rai Bashir Ahmad, Advocate for Appellant (in Crl. A. No. 249929 of 2018). Mr. Muhammad
MUHAMMAD SHAKEEL AND OTHERS
VS
GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB THROUGH HOME SECRETARY, LAHORE AND 3 OTHERS
Law: Anti Terrorism Act, 1997
Section: 11-EE
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (XXVII of 1997)--- ----S. 11-EE--Proscription of person--Administrative order--Scope--Question before High Court was whether, in appeals filed under S.11-EE(3-A) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, the Prosecutor Department had to assist the court or it was a matter wherein the Advocate-General Office was required to render assistance--Held: Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was primarily linked with criminal law, repercussions flowing therefrom were penal and right of appeal also laid before the judicial forum--Where the order was passed in administrative capacity against which right of appeal was provided before the High Court, in such like matters, Advocate-General Office represented the State--Order passed under S.11-E(3) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was administrative in nature, hence, Advocate General Office was required to assist the Court order accordingly. PLD 2005 Lah. 470 rel. ORDER In all these criminal appeals, the appellants have impugned their respective orders of various dates, passed by the Home Department, Govt. of the Punjab, vide which their individual representations filed under Section 11-EE (3) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 against the orders for insertion of their names in Fourth Schedule under the Act ibid, were rejected. 2. During hearing of these matters, question arose before this Court whether in appeals filed under section 11-EE(3-A) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, the Prosecutor Department is to assist this Court or it is a matter wherein the Advocate General office is to render assistance, and on this legal proposition, today, we have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned Law Officer at length. 3. Stance of learned counsel for the appellants in respective appeals is that the prosecution department should argue the case, while on the other hand, learned Additional Advocate states that since the impugned orders have been passed in administrative capacity; hence, it is prerogative of the Advocate General office to argue the matter. 4. To settle this precise legal issue, nature of the matter as well as its stage is necessary to be analyzed i.e. whether same has arisen as a result of prevention of…
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