Case Details

Citation(s)
2012 SLG 2739 2012 SLD 2739 2012 PLD 122
Balochistan High Court
Criminal Appeals Nos. 202 and 207 of 2009, decided on 30th November, 2011. DATE of hearing: 23rd November, 2011
MUHAMMAD HASHIM KHAN KAKAR AND MUHAMMAD NOOR MESKANZAI, JJ
Kamran Mullah Khail and Munir Ahmed Lango for Appellants (in Crl.As.Nos.202 and 207 of 2009). Haji Liaquat Ali for the State (in Crl.As.Nos.202 and 207 of 2009)

MUHAMMAD RASOOL and another

VS

THE STATE

Law:

Section:

(a) Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908)--- ----Ss. 4 & 5---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.7 & 19(8B)---Juvenile offender---Jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court---Scope---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Police prosecution witnesses through their straightforward and confidence inspiring evidence had connected the accused with the crime---Police Officials having no ill-will against the accused were competent witnesses and their evidence could not be discarded only due to their being connected with the Police department-Non-production of independent witnesses from the locality was immaterial on account of the present trend of the society of avoiding poking their nose in such like affairs---Accused had been arrested red handed while preparing a bomb and a large quantity of explosive substance was recovered from their possession, which was to be used in bomb blasts for which they were making preparations---Case of accused fell within the jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court---Age of an accused had no relevance to the question of such jurisdiction---Under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, court would acquire jurisdiction if the offence was triable by it, whereas under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, court would acquire jurisdiction if offenders were juvenile, irrespective of the nature of the offence committed by them---Acquittal of four co-accused in the case was of no help to accused, as the nature of evidence in respect of acquitted co-accused was quite different than the nature of evidence against the present accused---Required sanction for prosecution, if not received within 30 days of submission of challan in the court, the same would be deemed to have been accorded within the meaning of S.19(8B) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Trial Court, thus, could proceed with the trial of the case---Accused did not deserve any leniency---Conviction of accused was consequently maintained---Sentence of two accused was also maintained, but the sentence of third accused who was minor at the time of occurrence was reduced from 14 years' R.I. to 8 years' R.I., as he might have been involved under the influence of his elder…
🔒
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