| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 4863 = 2026 SLD 4863 = 2025 PLJ 227 |
Islamabad High Court
Crl. A. No. 299 of 2024
Presented By: Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar and Muhammad Asif, JJ.
Maulana Muhammad Wajeeh Ullah Khan, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. Adnan Ali, DDPP for State. Date of hearing: 12.2.2025.
Crl. A. No. 299 of 2024
Presented By: Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar and Muhammad Asif, JJ.
Maulana Muhammad Wajeeh Ullah Khan, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. Adnan Ali, DDPP for State. Date of hearing: 12.2.2025.
ABDULLAH--Appellant
VERSUS
STATE etc.--Respondents
Law: Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997
Section: 7
Law: Explosive Substances Act, 1908
Section: 5
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (XXVII of 1997)-- ----S. 7--Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (VI of 1908), S. 5--Conviction and sentence--As per Section 7 of ESA, 1908, no Court shall proceed to trial of any person for an offence against this Act except with consent of Government--Although, sanction of prosecuting appellant is available on record in shape of memorandum which has been issued in consequence of letter--Firstly, said document has never been exhibited by prosecution during course of trial--Secondly, none of PWs have mentioned in their statements about making of any effort in this regard--Furthermore, said document has also not been put to accused in his statement u/S. 342 Cr.P.C--If accused facing trial is not confronted with incriminating circumstance, no conviction can be awarded on basis thereof--While holding so, High Court is guided by observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case--Held: It is a known and settled principle of law that primarily prosecution is bound to establish guilt against accused without shadow of reasonable doubt by producing trustworthy, convincing and coherent evidence enabling Court whether prosecution has succeeded in establishing accusation against accused or otherwise and if it comes to conclusion that charges so imputed against accused have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, then accused becomes entitled for his release on getting benefit of doubt in prosecution case--In such situation Court should not abridge such right of accused--After considering all pros and cons of this case, High Court has come to this irresistible conclusion that prosecution could not prove its case against appellant beyond shadow of doubt. [Para 14 & 15] A & B 2018 SCMR 495; 2019 YLR (Note) 109 & 2024 MLD 608. Maulana Muhammad Wajeeh Ullah Khan, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. Adnan Ali, DDPP for State. Date of hearing: 12.2.2025. Judgment Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar, J.--This judgment shall dispose of above captioned criminal appeal filed by appellant Abdullah son of Sher Ahmed Khan against his conviction and sentence awarded to him vide judgment dated 30.07.2024, rendered by the learned…