Case Details

Citation(s)
2007 SLG 4002 2007 SLD 4002 = 2007 YLR 1554
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No.704 of 2007, decided on 12th February, 2007.
Before Mian Muhammad Najum-uz-Zaman and Sh. Javaid Sarfraz, JJ
Nadeem ud Din Malik and Fauzi Zafar for Petitioner. Malik Saeed Hassan for 
Respondent. Dr. Badar-uz-Zaman Chattha for
Respondent No.5. Ms. Salma Malik A.A.-G.

Y.K. LEE---Petitioner

VERSUS

DIG SARGODHA and 4 others---Respondents

Law: Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997

Section: 19(3) , 7

(a) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)---

 

----Ss.19(3) & 7---Criminal procedure code (V of 1898), S.190(c)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.324/440/148/149---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court on knowing about the case against the accused through a newspaper, while exercising his jurisdiction under S.19(3) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 read with S.190(c), Cr.P.C., summoned the record of the case and after going through the file directed the S.H.O. to apply section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, in the F.I.R. forthwith and then to proceed for further investigation strictly on merits---Validity---Special Judge under S.19(3) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was competent to take cognizance in a matter falling within the ambit of the said Act directly, but the said provision was absolutely silent qua the authority of Trial Court to direct the Agency to conduct the investigation on particular lines---Courts were created or established for doing justice between the parties and not for the purpose of giving guidelines to the Agency to collect the data for proving certain charges against the accused person---Impugned order to the extent of directing the Investigating Officer to apply S.7 of the aforesaid Act forthwith and then to proceed for further investigation strictly on merits, was against the spirit of criminal jurisprudence and to such extent was neither justifiable nor sustainable---Case was consequently remanded to the Special Judge for fresh adjudication upon the matter with the observation that if the Court was satisfied about the attraction of the provisions of S.7 of the said Act, it after taking cognizance of the matter would proceed further as required under the law---Accused in that eventuality would be at liberty to move an application under S.23 of the said Act for transfer of the case, which would be decided on merits at the earliest by the Court---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register