Case Details

Citation(s)
2004 SLG 2788 2004 SLD 2788 2004 PLD 652
Sindh High Court
Special A.T.As. Nos. 15, 35 and 37 of 2002, decided on 6th August, 2004, dates of hearing; 26th and 29th July; 2004
MUHAMMAD MUJEEBULLAH SIDDIQUI AND MUHAMMAD AFZAL SOOMRO, JJ
Muhammad Nasrullah Siddiqui (called absent) for Appellant. Habib Ahmed, A.A.G. for
Respondent.

MUHAMMAD AYAZ alias CHEENA and others

VS

THE STATE

Law:

Section:

(a) Void Order---- ----Judgment---Order/ without jurisdiction being void ab initio cannot be clothed with legality merely because it has been upheld in appeal or revision by inadvertence---Any super structure on such void order during the course of appeal or revision shall not have the effect of providing legal cover and an order or without jurisdiction shall continue to be void and nullity in law, notwithstanding a per incuriam order or in appeal or revision. (b) Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)--- ----Ss. 7 & 39-C(2)(e)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.392/34--­Jurisdiction of Trial Court---Validity---Offences of vehicle snatching were no more triable by the Anti-Terrorism Courts after amendments introduced in the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, vide Ordinance XXXIX of 2001 dated 15-8-2001 and such Courts had ceased to have jurisdiction and with the insertion of S.39-C(2)(e) all such cases pending before the Anti-Terrorism Courts were required to be referred to the Sessions Courts having jurisdiction---Judgment passed by the Trial Court in the case, therefore, was without jurisdiction and the s of High Court disposing of the appeals at the instance of accused upholding the conviction recorded by a Court having no jurisdiction and reducing the sentence, were against the mandatory provisions of law rendering the s per incuriam---Judgments in appeals were consequently recalled and restored to the stage where they were on the dates of passing the same---Entire of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting all the three accused was set aside being without jurisdiction and the case was remanded to the Sessions Judge concerned for disposal according to law---Appeals were disposed of accordingly. Farhan Zafar and others v. The State PLD 2002 Kar. 311; Ghazi Khan v. The State PLD 2003 Kar. 71; Crown v. Habibullah PLD 1952 Lah. 587; Raju v. Emperor AIR 1928 Lah. 462; Nagappa Vyankappa Sali v. Emperor AIR 1931 Bom.529; Emperor v. Rashbehari Singh AIR 1934 Pat. 551; Mallor v. Swire LR (1885) 30 Ch. D.239; Gulzar Hassan Shah v. Ghulam Murtaza PLD 1970 SC 335; Muhammad Hanif v. The, State PLD 1974 Kar. 22; Soomar v. The State PLD 1975 Kar. 80; Qaim Din v. The State 1977 PCr.LJ 546;…
🔒
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