Case Details

Citation(s)
2024 SLG 5045 2024 SLD 5045 2024 PCRLJ 1151
Sindh High Court
Criminal Revision Application No. D-18 of 2021, decided on 14th December, 2022.Date of hearing: 14th December, 2022.
Before Naimatullah Phulpoto and Abdul Mobeen Lakho, JJ.
Sarfraz A. Akhund for Applicant. Zulfiqar Ali Jatoi, Additional Prosecutor General for the State. Complainant in person.

SARANG---Applicant

VERSUS

The STATE and another---Respondents

Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860

Section: 377,,,7, 23

Law: Anti Narcotics Force Act, 1997

Section:

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 377---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 7 & 23---Unnatural offence, act of terrorism---Power to transfer cases to regular courts---Scope---Application for transfer of the case to the ordinary court was filed by accused persons, which was dismissed---Validity---From the perusal of FIR and other material collected during investigation, it transpired that allegation against applicant/accused was that he committed carnal intercourse with the son of complainant in his otaq, at the time of tuition and complainant reported the matter to the police---From the close scrutiny of the case, it was clear that act of unnatural offence was committed by the accused in an otaq/room---For an action or threat of action to be accepted as terrorism within the meanings of S. 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, the action must fall in subsection (2) of S.6 of the said Act and the use or threat of such action must be designed to achieve any of the objectives specified in clause (b) of subsection (1) of S.6 of that Act or those mentioned in clause (c) of subsection (1) of S.6 of that Act---Any action constituting an offence, howsoever grave, shocking, brutal, gruesome or horrifying, did not qualify to be termed as terrorism if it was not committed with the design or purpose specified or mentioned in clauses (b) or (c) of subsection (1) of S.(6) of the said Act---Actions specified in subsection (2) of S.6 of that Act did not qualify to be labeled or characterized as terrorism if such actions were taken in furtherance of personal enmity or private vendetta---In the present case, element of terrorism was missing---Consequently, order passed by Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, was not sustainable in law, and the same was set-aside---Case was ordered to be transferred to the ordinary Court having jurisdiction in the matter---Revision application stood allowed in the above terms.Ghulam Hussain and others v. The State PLD 2020 SC 61 rel.ORDERNAIMATULLAH PHULPOTO, J.---Through this revision application, applicant/accused Sarong son of Hussain Bux by caste Shar has called in question order dated 14.09.2021, passed by learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court,…
🔒
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