| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 6558 2024 SLD 6558 = 2024 YLR 1256 |
Sindh High Court, Sukkur Bench
Criminal Revisions Nos. D-45, D-47, D-48 and D-49 of 2023, decided on 29th November, 2023.
Before Yousuf Ali Sayeed and Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, JJ
Shabbir Ali Bozdar for the Applicants. Khalil Ahmed Maitlo, D.P.G. for the State.
Criminal Revisions Nos. D-45, D-47, D-48 and D-49 of 2023, decided on 29th November, 2023.
Before Yousuf Ali Sayeed and Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, JJ
Shabbir Ali Bozdar for the Applicants. Khalil Ahmed Maitlo, D.P.G. for the State.
JANNAT GUL and another---Applicants
VERSUS
The STATE and others---Respondents
Law: Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997
Section: XXVII,6(1),6(2)(o),7,12,13,3,4
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 324,353,147,148
Law: Sindh Arms Act, 2013
Section: V,23(1)(a)
Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)-------Ss. 6 (1), (2)(o), 7, 12, 23 & Third Sched., Entry No.4---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 353, 147 & 148---Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013) S.23(1)(a)--Terrorism, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, rioting armed with deadly weapons and recovery of weapons---Anti-Terrorism Court---Jurisdiction---Police encounter--Element of creating fear and insecurity in society, absence of---Effect---Accused persons were alleged to have encountered a police party in armed conflict--Accused persons sought transfer of trial to Court of ordinary jurisdiction on the plea that no act of terrorism was made out---Validity---Although there was an act of armed resistance against members of law enforcement agency, as envisaged in S. 6(2)(o) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, yet factor specified in S. 6(1) of AntiTerrorism Act, 1997, was absent---Matter did not fall within the fold of 'terrorism'--Mere recovery of firearms and ammunition coupled with assertion that the same were to be supplied onwards for the purpose of creating/ spreading terror did not suffice for that purpose, especially when intended recipient was not a proscribed person or proscribed organization---Alleged offence was even otherwise not one of those heinous offences which did not constitute offence of terrorism per se but were nonetheless to be tried by an Anti-Terrorism Court due to having been specified in Entry No. 4 of Third Schedule to Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---High Court set aside the order passed by Anti-Terrorism Court and trial was transferred to ordinary Court of competent jurisdiction---Revision was allowed accordingly.Ghulam Hussain and others v. The State PLD 2020 SC 61 and P.C. Nasir Hussain v. Hasnain Shah and 2 others 2022 MLD 425 rel.Date of hearing: 15th November, 2023.ORDERYOUSUF ALI SAYEED, J.---The Applicants have impugned the Order passed by the Court of Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Ghotki at Mirpur Mathelo on 11.09.2023, dismissing Cr. Misc. Applications Nos.12, 13, 14 and 15 of 2023 (the "Underlying Applications") preferred by them under Section 23 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997…