Case Details

Citation(s)
2022 SLG 678 2022 SLD 678 2022 PCRLJ 558
Sindh High Court
Special Criminal A.T. Appeal No. 196, Special Criminal A.T.Acquittal Appeal No. 209, Special Criminal A.T. Jail AppealNo. 204 and Confirmation Case No. 8 of 2020, decided on 23rdDecember, 2021. Dates of hearing: 1st and 9th December,2021.
MOHAMMED KARIM KHAN AGHA, JUSTICE, ARSHAD HUSSAIN KHAN, JUSTICE
Aamir Mansoob Qureshi and Iftikhar Ahmed Shah for Appellants (in Special Criminal A.T. Appeal No. 196 and Confirmation Case No. 8 of 2020).Muhammad Iqbal Awan, Additional Prosecutor General, Sindh for the State (in Special Criminal A.T. Appeal No. 196,

TARIQ KHAN AND OTHErsVSTHE STATE

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 322,324,353,400,171

Law: Sindh Arms Act, 2013

Section: 23(1)

Law: Anti Terrorism Act, 1997

Section: 17,19,21-M,23

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 10-A

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 322, 324, 353, 400 171---Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013) S. 23(1)--- Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 17, 19, 21-M 23---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 10-A---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 423---Qatl-bis-Sabab, attempt to Qatl-i-amd, assault to deter public servant, belonging to gang of dacoits, wearing garb or carrying token used by public servant with fraudulent intent and recovery of illegal arms---Fair trial and due process of law---Trial of other offences---Anti-Terrorism Court---Jurisdiction---Appellate Court, jurisdiction of---Accused assailed his conviction and sentence awarded to him by Anti-Terrorism Court on the plea that without deciding his application for transfer of trial to Court of ordinary jurisdiction, Anti-Terrorism Court decided the matter when no offence under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was established on record---Validity---When charge conveyed to accused what he had to defend himself and evidence was recorded in accordance with law as it would have been before an ordinary Court, accused was not prejudiced at trial---Accused was guaranteed his full due process rights as laid down under Art. 10-A of the Constitution---No legal justification was available for remanding the case back for de novo trial which if taken as a precedent would only leave the accused in jail longer---Completely clogged up work of Trial Courts delay in trials would not be in the interest of justice---High Court decided to hear and decide the appeal even if prima facie jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court to hear such case was doubtful---High Court directed the office to fix appeals for regular hearing---Objection to jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court was decided accordingly. Gul Muhammad v. The State and another 2002 PCr.LJ 1374; Farooq Ahmed v. The State and another 2020 SCMR 78; Amjad Ali and others v. The State PLD 2017 SC 661; Muhammad Bilal v. The State and others 2019 SCMR 1362; Ghulam Hussain and others v. The State and others PLD 2020 SC 61; The State v. Muhammad Arif and 3 others PLD 2012 Sindh 119; Muhammad Bilal alias Sulleman v. Federation of Pakistan through the Secretary Ministry of Law, Justice and Human…
🔒
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