Pakistan Law Site https://www.pakistanlawsite.

com/Login/Check

Caselaw Search

Statutes Search

Courtwise Search

Citation Search

Advance Search

Search in Staute -- Anti-Terrorism Act 1997-8

Enter Keyword Enter Court All Search

Back

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997-8

Your Search returned total 41 records from 0 - 41

Citation Name: 2020 MLD 1248 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case

SHAHID HUSSAIN VS State

Ss. 9, 8, 11-F, 11-W &19-A---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 103---Prohibition of acts likely to stir up
sectarian hatred, membership, support and meetings relating to a proscribed organization---Mode of making
searches and arrest---Search to be made in presence of witnesses---Appreciation of evidence---Police witnesses---
Scope---Complainant, an Inspector of police, complained that people of different sects came to him and complained
about the spite being spread by the accused through facebook---Investigating officer deposed that the accused
during investigation had disclosed the password of his facebook account and the account was checked by an
Incharge of the IT department who had found the spiteful conversations---Witnesses had remained consistent on all
material points---Accused had cross-examined them at length but had failed to impeach their credibility---Police
witnesses were as good as any other witness unless it was proved through reliable evidence that they had a reason
to falsely implicate the accused---No such material was brought on record in the case---Section 19-A, Anti-Terrorism
Act, 1997, excluded the application of S.103, Cr.P.C.---Investigating Officer had sent the USB (Universal Serial Bus)
flash drive and the CPU (Central Processing Unit) to the Forensic Laboratory---Report of Forensic Laboratory had
reinforced the prosecution case---Prosecution had proved the charge against the accused beyond any shadow of
doubt---High Court, while dismissing appeal, reduced the sentence handed down by the Trial Court as the accused
was a first offender.

Head Notes Case Description

1 of 22 10/15/2020, 11:39 AM
Pakistan Law Site https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/Check

Citation Name: 2019 PCrLJ 1432 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case

MUJAHID IQBAL VS State

Ss. 4 & 14---Anti Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 7 & 8---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 324, 148 &
149---Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S. 17(2)(3)(4)---Attempt to
commit qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly, haraabah, act of terrorism---Police
custody of accused was declined on the ground that since the accused was juvenile at the time of commission of
offence, therefore, Anti-Terrorism Court lacked jurisdiction to hold his trial---Police was directed that the case be
forwarded to Juvenile Court---Scope---Under S. 4(3) of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, the Juvenile
Court established under the Ordinance had exclusive jurisdiction to try cases in which a juvenile was accused of
commission of offence---Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was promulgated on 20th August 1997, much prior to the
promulgation of the Ordinance---According to S. 21-G of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997, initially all offences under the
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 were to be tried by the Anti-Terrorism Courts established under the Act---Word "exclusively"
inserted in S. 21-G of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 being later in time, would have precedence over S. 4(3) of the
Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, when the intention of legislature was reflected in S. 14 of the Ordinance
which envisaged that the provisions of the Ordinance would be in addition to and not in derogation of any law for the
time being in force---Even otherwise, the Federal Government of Pakistan through Notification dated 30.05.2012
had declared all the Anti-Terrorism Courts established throughout the country under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997,
competent to exercise the powers of Juvenile Courts in the area of their respective jurisdiction, under the Juvenile
Justice System Ordinance, 2000---Not only the powers and functions of Juvenile Court had been conferred on the
Anti-Terrorism Court, but under S. 21-G of the Act, Anti-Terrorism Court had exclusive jurisdiction to try all such
offences---Revision petition was accepted by setting aside the impugned order.

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2019 PLD 527 ISLAMABAD Bookmark this Case

MUHAMMAD SIKANDAR VS State

Ss. 6, 7, 8 & 25---Act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Causing terror---Proof---Accused was convicted and

sentenced in committing acts of terrorism by using his family as human shields while deadlocking main road in
federal capital armed with automatic weapons and ammunition---Accused assailed conviction and sentence passed
by Trial Court on grounds that his actions did not constitute terrorism---Validity---Offence of terrorism was constituted
as design was to create psychological impact of creating a sense of fear and insecurity relatable to general public,
society or a section thereof---Offences mentioned in schedule must have nexus with object of statute and
contemplated under Ss.6 to 8 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---For offence of terrorism to be constituted it was not
necessary that victims were actually harmed or that terror was caused; it was sufficient if design of intended act was
likely to create terror, a sense of fear and insecurity amongst general public, society or section thereof---Mens rea
and actus reus contemplated in Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 coexisted, in the present case---High Court declined to
interfere in conviction and sentence awarded by Trial Court as prosecution had proved charge against accused
beyond reasonable doubt and that there were no mitigating circumstances for handing down a lesser sentence---
Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2017 PCrLJ 505 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case

SHAH SIM KHAN VS State

2 of 22 10/15/2020, 11:39 AM
Pakistan Law Site https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/Check

Ss. 6, 7 & 8---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Arms Act (XXIII of 2013), Ss. 15 & 17---Possession of un-licensed manufacture,
sale or repair of arms and ammunition, unauthorized transportation of arms and ammunition, unlicensed possession
of arms and ammunition terrorism--- Appreciation of evidence--- "Terrorism"---Essential ingredients---Complainant
(police) alleged that they received information about transportation of a huge lot of arms and ammunitions by a car
which was apprehended and recovery of ammunition was made from its secret cavities---Effect---Mere recovery of
huge quantity of ammunition without producing the cogent and concrete evidence showing that accused belonged to
a terrorist organization would not saddle accused for commission of an offence attracting "terrorism"---Ingredients
for determination of offence of terrorism were first taking of action specified in S. 6(2) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997,
second action committed with design, intention and mens rea and third causing intimidation, awe, fear and
insecurity in the public or society---All such ingredients were not attracted to the facts and circumstances of present
case---Prosecution had based its opinion with regard to use of ammunition for the purpose of terrorist activities
merely on assumption and presumption which in the given circumstances could not be acceded to---Appeal was
allowed and case was remanded accordingly for decision afresh.

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2017 PLD 55 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case

AKHTAR MUHAMMAD VS State

3 of 22 10/15/2020, 11:39 AM
Pakistan Law Site https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/Check

S. 365-A---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 2(t), 6, 7(e), 8, 13, 17 & Third Schedule---Kidnapping or abducting
for extortion of property, valuable security, etc., act of Terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Jurisdiction of Anti-
Terrorism Court---Scope---Question before High Court was as to whether the offence under S. 365-A, P.P.C., if
having no nexus with the object of Ss. 6, 7 and 8 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, would still be triable by the Anti-
Terrorism Court or an ordinary court---Under S.2(t) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, 'Scheduled Offence' meant an
offence as set out in the Third Schedule of the Act---Abduction or kidnapping for ransom had been inserted in the
Third Schedule of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997; therefore, S. 365-A, P.P.C. was a Scheduled Offence, which was similar
to offence under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, punishment of which had been provided under S. 7(e) of the Act---Both
offences were identical except that the quantum of punishment of both the offences slightly varied from each other---
Punishment provided under S. 7(e) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 for the offence of kidnapping for ransom or hostage
taking was death or imprisonment for life---Abduction or kidnapping for ransom had been added in the Third
Schedule to Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, but punishment thereof had not been provided therein; rather, the punishment
had been provided under S. 365-A, P.P.C., that was death or imprisonment for life and forfeiture of property---
Forfeiture of property, in addition to death or imprisonment for life under S. 365-A, P.P.C., was the point of variation
in the sentences to the two offences; therefore, the accused was to be charged under S. 7(e) of the Act and under
S. 365-A, P.P.C. separately---In case of proof of the charge of abduction for ransom, if the offences had nexus with
the object of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, the accused would be convicted under S.7(e) of the Act, otherwise
under S. 365-A, P.P.C.; however, at the same time, the accused would not be convicted under both the offences---
All offences with regard to use or threat of actions under S.6 of the Act, and offences mentioned under the Third
Schedule, would be exclusively triable by Anti-Terrorism Court along with offences with which the accused might be
charged under the Code (P.P.C.) at the same trial, as provided under S.17 of the Act---Anti-Terrorism Court could
also try other offences with which an accused might under the Code be charged at the same trial if the offence was
connected with such other offence---If accused was charged under S. 7(a) of the Act and under S. 302, P.P.C., then
he would be separately charge sheeted under S.7(a) of the Act and under S. 302, P.P.C., and on proof of the
charges, the accused could be convicted and sentenced under each of the two sections of the laws, as one related
to special law while the other related to ordinary law---However, in case of an offence under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997
and scheduled offence, the accused though would be charge sheeted separately, but he would be convicted under
only one offence keeping in view the proof available on the record---Words 'under this Act' used in S. 13 of Anti-
Terrorism Act clarified trial of the cases under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and the words 'of scheduled offences' spoke
about the trial of scheduled offence as according to S. 2(t) of the Act, 'Scheduled Offence' meant an offence as set
out in the Third Schedule---Offences mentioned in the Third Schedule, even having no nexus with the object or
terrorism, would be exclusively triable by Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and not by an ordinary court.

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2016 YLRN 122 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case

MUHAMMAD IRFAN VS State

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--8 ,

4 of 22 10/15/2020, 11:39 AM
Pakistan Law Site https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/Check

Ss. 6, 7 & 8---Act of terrorism, determining factors of---Whether a particular act was an act of terrorism or not, the
purpose, the motivation, the actus reus or mens rea, were the determining factors to resolve the said riddle---Mere
brutality of an offence, in absence of the requirement of S.6 would not constitute an offence under S.7 of Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997---Where element of sense of fear or insecurity in public or a section of the public was missing,
the heinousness alone could not render a case triable under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Offences committed in the
background of personal enmity or with the burning desire of settling private vendetta, resulting in fear to many or a
few, certainly, would not fall within the domain of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Fear of insecurity in the society, as a
fallout or undesigned consequences, was not by itself terrorism, unless the motive or the design or the mens rea
pre-existed for creating such fear or insecurity in the society---Fear or insecurity, must not be a byproduct, fallout or
unintended consequence of a private crime, and that was what to be understood, while determining, if a
crime/offence committed, could be held an act of terrorism or not---Creation of fear and insecurity in the society was
not itself terrorism, unless it was coupled with the motive; it was essential that the offence committed, must have a
nexus with the object of the case as contemplated under Ss. 6, 7 & 8 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Trial Court, in
the present case, did not appear to have taken regard to the nexus between the offence committed and the object of
the case as envisaged by Ss.6, 7 & 8 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Mere allegation that accused used acid for
causing bodily injuries to prosecution witnesses, would not give rise to an act of terrorism---Conviction/sentence
recorded by the Trial Court against accused under S.7(c) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was set aside and he was
acquitted of the charge in circumstances.

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2016 PCrLJ 961 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case

MUHRAM ALI VS State

2000 PCr.LJ 1195, 2000 YLR 2668, 2000 YLR 902, 2001 PCr.LJ 1528, 2001 PCr.LJ 581, 2007 SCMR 142, 2014
YLR 2534, 2016 P Cr. L J 961, PLD 2002 SC 841, PLD 2003 Lah. 593, PLD 2004 Lah. 199, PLD 2009 Kar. 191,

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--23 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--8 ,
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--561-A , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--148 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--149 ,
Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 ,

5 of 22 10/15/2020, 11:39 AM
Pakistan Law Site https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/Check

Ss. 23, 8, 7 & 6(k)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 148 & 149---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 561-
A---Qatl-i-amd; abetment; common object; terrorism---Power to transfer cases to regular courts---Application under
S. 561-A, Cr.P.C.---Complainants alleged that the accused persons demanded Bhatta from them, and on their
refusal to pay the same, the accused attacked on them with firearms making straight and aerial firing, which had
resulted in killing of the deceased---Anti-Terrorism Court dismissed application for transfer of the case to ordinary
court---Validity---Undeniably, the parties were on inimical terms with each other, as factum of animosity was
reflected form the series of FIR's lodged by them---Government had issued notification, whereby reward money for
dangerous criminals had been notified and the name of the deceased was mentioned therein---Said notification had
also mentioned the personal character and criminal activities of the deceased---Neither the deceased had
challenged said notification, nor the same had been recalled by the Home Department---Averments of the FIR were
silent regarding financial status and source of income of the complainant against which the accused had been
demanding Bhatta---Complainant had also not disclosed the specific dates, time and places of demanding of Bhatta
by the accused person, nor any such evidence had been produced before the Investigating Officer to prima facie
establish such allegations---Mere allegations of demanding Bhatta, in absence of any tangible material, did not
attract S. 6(k) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Section 6(k) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was neither mentioned in the
FIR nor in the Challan---Anti-Terrorism Court had taken cognizance of the case while declining request of the
Investigating Officer to transfer the case to the ordinary court---Cumulative effect of the averments of FIR,
surrounding circumstances and other material available on record, had replicated that the offence had been
committed on account of previous enmity with a definite motive---Alleged place of occurrence was not populated
area, and consequently, the allegations of aerial firing did not appear to be a case of terrorism---Intention of the
accused party did not depict or manifest any act of terrorism---Loss of life existed in a murder case, which was also
heinous crime against the society, but trial of each murder case could not be adjudged by the Anti-Terrorism Court,
except where peculiar circumstances as contemplated under Ss.6, 7, 8 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 existed---High
Court, allowing application under S. 23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, directed the Anti-Terrorism Court to transmit the
case to the Sessions Judge---Application under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C was allowed accordingly.

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2015 YLR 2617 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case

MIRCHOO alias MIRCH VS State

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--23 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--8 ,
Ingredients--TERM ,

6 of 22 10/15/2020, 11:39 AM
Pakistan Law Site https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/Check

Ss. 6, 7, 8 & 23---Object and scope of Ss.6, 7 & 8 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---"Act of terrorism", determination of---
Principles---Case triable by Anti-terrorism court---Ingredients---In order to determine as to whether an offence would
fall within the ambit of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, it was essential to have a glance over the allegations made in
the FIR; material collected during investigation and surrounding circumstances and to examine; whether the
ingredient of alleged offence had any nexus with the object of the case as contemplated under Ss.6, 7, 8 of Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997; whether a particular act was an act of terrorism or not, the motivation, object, design and
purpose behind the said act was to be seen; whether said act had created a sense of fear and insecurity in the
public, or in a section of the public or community, or in any sect; whether action resulted in striking terror or creating
fear, panic, sensation, helplessness; and sense of insecurity among the people in the particular area, the same
would amount to terror and such an action would fall within the ambit of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and would
be triable by a Special Court constituted for such purpose---Courts had only to see, whether the 'terrorist act' was
such which would have the tendency to create sense of fear and insecurity in the minds of the people or any section
of the society---In the present case, accused person had committed offence on the main road and target was Sub-
Inspector of Police was not material that Police functionary was on duty or not at the time of violation---In the result
of indiscriminate firing by automatic weapons two persons had lost their lives---Act of accused on main road in brutal
manner, had created fear and insecurity to the general public---Act of accused involved serious violence against the
members of the Police force---Case, in circumstances, prima facie fell under S.6(n) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and
Anti-Terrorism Court had the exclusive jurisdiction to try the same---Application of accused, to transfer case to
regular court, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2015 PCrLJ 628 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case

SHAHID ZAFAR VS State

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--8 , Jurisdiction of Special Court--
Term ,

Ss. 6, 7 & 8---"Terrorist act", determination of---Jurisdiction of Special Court---For determination as to whether an
offence would fall within the ambit of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, it would be essential to have a glance over the
allegations made in the F.I.R., piece of evidence and surrounding circumstances; it was also essential to examine,
whether alleged offence had any nexus with the object of the case as contemplated under Ss.6, 7 & 8 of Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997---Whether act of accused was an "act of terrorism" or not, the motivation, object, design and
purpose behind the said act, was to be examined; it was also to be seen as to whether said act had created a sense
of fear and insecurity in the public, or in a section of public, or community or in any sect---Where action would result
in striking terror on creating fear, panic, sensation, helplessness and sense of insecurity among the people in the
particular area, it would amount to "terror"; and such an action squarely fell within the ambit of S.6 of Anti-Terrorism
Act, 1997, and would be triable by a Special Court constituted for such purpose---Courts had only to see whether
the "terrorist act" was such which would have the tendency to create sense of fear and insecurity in the minds of the
people or any section of the society.

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2015 PCrLJ 768 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Bookmark this Case

State VS SUFI ALI

1994 PCr.LJ 229, 2000 PCr.LJ 902, PLD 1972 SC 271, PLD 1985 SC 11,

7 of 22 10/15/2020, 11:39 AM
Pakistan Law Site https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/Check

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--8 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--9 , Appeal Against Acquittal--TERM , Criminal Procedure Code
(Cr.P.C) 1898--196 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--417 , Maintainability--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code
1860--153-A , Procedure--TERM ,

S. 153-A---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.8 & 9---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.417(2) &
196---Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art.60---Promoting enmity between
different groups, acts intended or likely to stir up sectarian hatred and offences against the State---Procedure---
Appeal against acquittal---Maintainability---Section 196, Cr.P.C., had elaborated that it was the domain of the Central
Government or the Provincial Government or an officer empowered on their behalf to move a complaint for
invocation of S.153-A, P.P.C.---Procedure specified in S.196, Cr.P.C., had to be strictly complied with and any defect
in procedure was not curable---Such mandatorily expressed provision could not and should not be overlooked---
Supreme Appellate Court observed that Legal Branch in Gilgit-Baltistan, should be well versed with such matters
and all District Police Officers should be acquainted with the matters for which procedure had been laid down and
steps to be taken---Findings of the Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan, in the present case, whereby accused were acquitted
from the charges, prosecution and Law Department should have gone through the clear cut orders of the court and
realized their mistake, and having legal approach not to prefer an appeal in the Supreme Appellate Court, as the
said order had no infirmities---Legal department, in the present case, should have consulted the Advocate General
Gilgit-Baltistan, who was representing them; if they did not agree to his professional advice, then Law Department
should depute one of its experts, and well versed officers to deal with the matter with their professional advice by
performing such non-maintainable appeal against acquittal, revisions and reviews---Supreme Appellate Court further
observed that findings of the Chief Court, in the present case, were not based on the merits and quality of evidence
adduced, but on the mode adopted for prosecution of the individuals.

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2014 GBLR 137 SUPREME-APPELLATE-COURT Bookmark this Case

State VS SUFI ALI

8 of 22 10/15/2020, 11:39 AM
Pakistan Law Site https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/Check

S. 153-A---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.8, 9 & 25---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.196 &
417(2)---Promoting enmity between different groups, act of terrorism---Appeal against acquittal---Case was
registered on information with the delay of almost 20 days---Procedure---Police Officer was duty bound to send
report to the Magistrate concerned forthwith---Police Officer did not send any such report to the Magistrate, which
had caused a serious doubt about the secret information and proceedings by the Police Officer---Case could not be
registered with promptitude, which had made the case of prosecution doubtful---Prosecution witnesses had stated
that they were never associated with the investigation of the case nor their statements under S.161, Cr.P.C., were
ever recorded by the Investigating Officer---Inference could be drawn that witnesses had not seen accused persons
while committing the offence---Whole exercise undertaken by the Investigator, while collecting the incriminating
material from accused persons, was rendered futile---Such kind of evidence could not be relied upon for conviction
and sentence, particularly, when appeal was against acquittal---Cognizance in the offence under S.153-A, P.P.C.,
could not be taken to any court in view of S.196, Cr.P.C.---Registration of FIR in such a manner was void ab initio---
Offence under S.153-A, P.P.C., could not be termed as an offence against individual, rather it was an offence
against the State---Court would take the cognizance of offence punishable under S.153-A, P.P.C., upon a complaint
made by Federal Government or Provincial Government or some officer so empowered in that behalf by any of the
two Governments---No sanction was accorded, entitling the Judge Anti-Terrorism Court to take the cognizance of
the offence under S.153-A, P.P.C.---Case in an offence under S.153-A, P.P.C., could not be proceeded on the report
prepared under S.173, Cr.P.C.---Non-adherence and observance of the provisions of S.196, Cr.P.C., rendered the
subsequent proceedings a nullity---Where a condition for the exercise of jurisdiction, was not fulfilled, the whole
proceedings, subsequent thereto would become coram non judice, and would have no legal effect, and would
render the whole exercise, not only illegal, but also without jurisdiction---Accused was presumed to be innocent,
unless found guilty---Supreme Appellate Court, could not substitute its own finding, unless it was found that the
findings of the Chief Court, were based on mis-reading of the evidence leading to miscarriage of justice---Judgment
of the Chief Court, whereby, accused persons were acquitted, was unexceptional, and did not require any
interference, in circumstances.

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2014 PCrLJ 1256 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Bookmark this Case

Syed NAWAZ HUSSAIN VS State

1999 PCr.LJ 445, PLD 1972 SC 271, PLD 2005 Lah. 631,

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--8 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--9 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--196 , Pakistan
Penal Code 1860--153-A ,

S. 153-A---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 8 & 9---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.196---Promoting
enmity between different groups, acts intended or likely to stir up sectarian hatred---Prosecution for offences against
the State---In view of the sensitivity of the offence under S.153-A, P.P.C. and S.8/9 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997,
same had been held in law to be an offence against the State, instead of an offence against an individual though the
individuals also affect from commission of such nature of offences---Right of prosecution had been given to the
State instead of an individual in the general interest of the people---S.H.O., or the informant in the case had lodged
the First Information Report, who were not Central/Provincial Government, nor they were the persons duly
authorized for the purpose as envisaged under S.196, Cr.P.C.---Proceedings carried out by the court on that report
was coram non judice, ab initio void and nullity in the eyes of law---Accused were acquitted from the charges, in
circumstances.

Head Notes Case Description

9 of 22 10/15/2020, 11:39 AM
Pakistan Law Site https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/Check

Citation Name: 2013 MLD 1588 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case

SHAHRUKH JATOI VS State

2011 PCr.LJ 1370, 2012 SCMR 517, PLD 2005 SC 530,

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--23 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--8 ,
Pakistan Penal Code 1860--109 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--216 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan
Penal Code 1860--34 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--354 ,

Ss. 23, 6, 7 & 8---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 354, 109, 216 & 34---Act of terrorism, qatl-e-amd, assault to
woman with intent to outrage her modesty, abetment, harbouring offender and common intention---Transfer of case
from Anti-Terrorism Court to the court of ordinary jurisdiction---Application for transfer of case of the accused was
dismissed by the Special Court---Validity---Offence was committed on the road and by such act of the accused,
young boy was shot dead by automatic weapon over petty matter---Act of accused was designed to create sense of
fear and insecurity and helplessness in the minds of general public disturbing the tempo of the life and tranquility of
the society and provisions of S.6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, were attracted and impact of such act terrorized
society at large by creating panic and fear in their minds---Presence of personal enmity would not exclude the
jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court and neither motive nor intent for commission of offence was relevant for the
purpose of conferring jurisdiction on the Anti-Terrorism Court---Act of accused created sense of helplessness and
insecurity amongst the people of area where offence was committed and did destabilize the public at large---Present
case would fall within the jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court---Order of the Trial Court did not suffer from any
material irregularity or illegality and the same was maintained.

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2012 YLR 1938 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case

ASRAR AHMED KHAN VS SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM COURT, FAISALABAD

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--23 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--8 ,
Constitutional petition--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--148 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--149 , Pakistan Penal
Code 1860--186 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--283 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--290 , Pakistan Penal Code
1860--291 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--324 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--353 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--435 ,
Pakistan Penal Code 1860--506 ,

10 of 22 10/15/2020, 11:39 AM
Pakistan Law Site https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/Check

Ss. 23, 6, 7 & 8---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.283/290/291/324/353/435/506/ 186/148/149---Constitution of

Pakistan, Art.199---Obstruction in public way, public nuisance, nuisance after injunction to discontinue, attempt to
commit Qatl-e-amd, assault or criminal force, mischief by fire or explosive substance, criminal intimidation,
obstruction public servant in discharge of public functions, rioting with deadly weapon and unlawful assembly---
Constitutional petition---Transfer of case to regular court---Anti-Terrorism Court vide impugned order had refused to
transfer the case to regular court---Validity---Accused petitioner and other accused persons while armed with fire-
arms had allegedly not only blocked a chowk, but had also made firing and pelted stones on police employees---
Astonishingly, none of the police officials or any other member of the District Administration, present at the place of
occurrence, had received a single injury---Investigating Officer could not collect any crime empty from the spot---Ten
or eleven unknown persons mentioned by complainant as accused had not been brought as accused in the case till
date---Sectarian hatred falling within the ambit of S.8(d)(i) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was not involved in the case
of accused and only terrorist activity had been alleged against the persons mentioned in the crime report---Facts of
the case in stricto sensu did not attract the provisions of any section of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, including S.6
thereof---Anti-Terrorism Court, therefore, was not justified in rejecting the application of accused moved under S.23
of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, especially when while disposing of the bail petition of accused it had been observed that
according to the Investigating Officer the case seemed to be doubtful---Impugned order was, consequently, set
aside with the direction to Anti-Terrorism Court to transfer the case to ordinary court for its trial afresh---
Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2012 PCrLJ 1735 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case

SHEHZAD ASIF RAZA VS SPECIAL JUDGE ANTI-TERRORISM COURT

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--8 , Essentials--Term ,

Ss. 6, 7 & 8---Act of terrorism, determination of---Essentials---In order to determine as to whether the offence would
fall within the ambit of S.6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, it is essential to look into the allegations levelled in the
F.I.R., the record of the case and the surrounding circumstances---Court was also to examine that the ingredients of
the alleged offence had nexus with the object of the case as contemplated under Ss.6, 7 and 8 of the said Act---
Motivation, object, design and purpose behind the act are also to be seen for determining its nature of terrorism,
besides having been created by it a sense of insecurity in the public.

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2012 PCrLJ 1342 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case

BAKSHOO VS State

PLD 1995 SC 1,

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--8 , Essential ingredients--Term ,

11 of 22 10/15/2020, 11:39 AM
Pakistan Law Site https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/Check

Ss. 6, 7 & 8---"Terrorism"---Essential ingredients---In order to determine as to whether an offence would fall within
the ambit under S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, it would be essential to have a glance over the allegations made in
the F.I.R., record of the case and surrounding circumstances; it was also necessary to examine whether the
ingredients of alleged offence had any nexus with the object of the case as contemplated under Ss.6, 7 & 8, Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997---Whether a particular act was an act of terrorism or not, the motivation, object, design or
purpose behind said act, and whether the said act had created a sense of fear and insecurity in the public, or any
section of public or community or in any sect was to be seen---Striking of terror was sine qua non for the application
of the provisions as contained in S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, which could not be determined without examining
the nature, gravity and heinousness of the alleged offence.

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2011 YLR 19 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case

TARIQ HAKIM VS State

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--8 ,

Ss. 6, 7 & 8---Determination as to whether an offence falls within the ambit of S.6, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Guide
lines---Motive and object both make a path for guideance in order to determine whether the offence falls within the
domain of Anti-Terrorism Act or not---Section 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 reflects two words, namely, "designed
to" and "action" and from the interpretation of both these words one can draw an inference that whether the offence
falls within the ambit of terrorism or not---Intention of the Legislature is very much clear from the words "designed to"
and "action" and both the words have great impact on each other in order to constitute an action as act of
terrorism---From the meaning of simple word "action" it is very different to deduct that the action of a person was an
act of terrorism without the word "designed to" which means object behind the action---If the brutality of the act of a
person is declared terrorism, then every murder case will fall within the definition of terrorism, as seen from any
angle the murder is always committed in a brutal manner---Definition of terrorism, thus, is incomplete without the
words, "designed to" which means the object, motive or purpose behind the act and not the consequential effect
created by such act.

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2009 PLD 11 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case

BASHIR AHMED VS MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE

2003 SCMR 1323, PLD 1998 SC 1445, PLD 2001 SC 521, PLD 2002 SC 841, PLD 2004 Lah. 199,

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--8 ,

Ss. 6, 7 & 8---Determination as to whether an offence falls within the ambit of S.6, Anti-Terrorism Act,
1997---Essentials.

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2007 PLD 444 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case

ABDUL SATTAR VS AMIR MUHAMMAD KHAN

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--8 ,

12 of 22 10/15/2020, 11:39 AM
Pakistan Law Site https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/Check

---Ss. 6, 7 & 8---Jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court, determination of---While deciding the question of jurisdiction it
would be necessary to examine that the ingredients of the alleged occurrence have any nexus with the object of the
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, as contemplated under Ss.6, 7 & 8 thereof---For determining whether a particular act is an
act of terrorism or not, the motivation, object, design or purpose behind lane same has to be seen.

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2006 PLD 377 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case

SHAFIQUE AHMED alias SHAHJEE VS State

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--8 ,

---S. 8---Method provided to nullify the delaying tactics of the accused or his counsel---When on two consecutive
dates the Advocate for the accused does not appear in Court, then a Counsel at State expense can be appointed to
proceed with the case---However, if subsequently the Advocate of the choice of accused appears then preference
shall be given to him to defend the accused, and the State Counsel may be retained to frustrate the future design of
delaying the case by the accused.

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2005 PCRLJ 1442 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Bookmark this Case

State VS Jamadar MUHAMMAD KHAN

PLD 2004 SC 917,

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--8 , Anti-Terrorism Act
1997--PREAMBLE ,

---Preamble, Ss.6, 7 & 8---Object and purpose of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Object to promulgate Anti-Terrorism
Act, 1997, was to control the acts of terrorism, Sectarian violence and other heinous offences as defined in S.6 of
the said Act and their speedy trials---Such offences should have nexus with the object of the Act and should be
covered by its Ss.6, 7 & 8.

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2005 PLD 57 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case

Haji ABDUL HAKEEM VS JUDGE SPECIAL COURT ANTI-TERRORISM, D. I. Khan

PLD 1993 SC 341, PLD 2003 SC 224, PLD 2004 Lah. 199, PLD 2004 Pesh. 175,

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--23 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--8 ,
Constitution of Pakistan 1973--199 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 ,

13 of 22 10/15/2020, 11:39 AM
Pakistan Law Site https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/Check

--Ss. 6, 7, 8 & 23---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional
petition---Anti Terrorism Act, 1997, applicability of---Transfer of case from Anti-Terrorism Court to ordinary Court---
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 would attracted only when act or threat to commit an act had nexus to Ss.6, 7 & 8 of Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997 and consequences of the act or threat to commit an act falling within the ambit of S.6 of Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997, were be striking a terror and creating a sense of fear a insecurity among the people---Ordinary
crimes and physical harm to t victim would not fall within the ambit of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---For taking
cognizance of an offence, the Court had to see psychological impact of violence which was always considered a
decisive factor---Court also had to see that a criminal act designed to create a sense of fear and insecurity in the
minds of general people and creating a panic in the society, was parameters for bringing an offender within the
ambit of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Present case did not qualify to be a terrorist act within the contemplation of S.6
or Schedule of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---High Court accepting Constitutional petition, directed that case be
transferred to the Court of ordinary jurisdiction under S. 23 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2005 YLR 2483 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case

Mian MUHAMMAD GHAFOOR VS State

2002 SCMR 908, 2003 SCMR 1323, PLD 1998 SC 1445, PLD 2001 SC 169, PLD 2003 SC 396,

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--8 , Constitution of Pakistan
1973--199 , Constitutional petition--TERM , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 ,

---Ss.302 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7(a) & 8--- Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---
Constitutional petition---Quashing of order and transfer of case to the Court of normal criminal jurisdiction---
Petitioner/accused had prayed that impugned order passed by Special Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court against him be
declared illegal, without lawful authority and of no legal effect---Petitioner also prayed to set aside said order and
pass order of transfer of case to the Court of normal criminal jurisdiction---Petitioner had killed his wife and four
children in a brutal manner and said crime. had caused terror and created a sense of fear and insecurity in the
people---Paramount consideration, in such-like cases, to be taken note of was the culminative fall out of
occurrence---Present incident having taken place in the house of petitioner, it was .sufficient to attract provisions of
S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Time, place and manner of the act was of eminent importance---Very object to
promulgate Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was to control the acts of terrorism, sectarian violences and other heinous
offences as defined in S.6 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and their speedy trials---To bring an offence within the ambit
of said Act, it was essential to examine that said offence should have nexus with object of said Act and offences
covered by its Ss.6, 7 & 8---Impugned order did not suffer from any illegality or irregularity justifying interference of
High Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction---Constitutional petition being devoid of force, was dismissed.

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2005 PLD 344 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case

AMIR KHAN VS State

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--8 ,

--Ss. 6, 7 & 8---Act of terrorism---In order to make an act punishable under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, it must be
shown that it bears nexus with Ss.6, 7 & 8 of the said Act.

Head Notes Case Description

14 of 22 10/15/2020, 11:39 AM
Pakistan Law Site https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/Check

Citation Name: 2004 PLD 917 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case

MUHAMMAD FAROOQ VS IBRAR

PLD 2001 SC 521, PLD 2003 SC 224, PLD 2004 Lah. 726,

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--8 , Pakistan Penal Code
1860--148 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--149 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--324 ,

----Ss: 6, 7 & 8---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302/324/148/149--Object of promulgation of Anti-Terrorism Act,
1997---To bring an offence within the ambit of the Act, it is essential to examine that the said offence should have
nexus with the object of the Act and offences covered by its Ss.6, 7 & 8---Motive in the present case, though was
shown to be a previous enmity, yet paramount consideration to betaken note of was the cumulative fall out of the
occurrence which had taken place in Mosque, a public place particularly during Jumma prayer where a large
number of people usually assemble to offer prayer, and such circumstance was sufficient to attract the provisions of
S. 6 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Principles. [Ibrar v. Safdar Hussain Malik, Judge, A.T.A. Court II, Rawalpindi
and 3 others PLD 2004 Lah. 726 reversed].

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2004 PCRLJ 121 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case

AMIR ZAMAN VS Syed AMER ABBAS

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--25 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--8 ,
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--417 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 ,
Pakistan Penal Code 1860--341 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--342 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--353 , Pakistan
Penal Code 1860--365-A , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--392 , Pakistan Penal Code
1860--394 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--412 , West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965--13 ,

----S. 417(2-A)--- Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7, 8 & 25(4)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/341
/342/353/365/365-A/392/394/412/34---West Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S.13--Appeal against acquittal
and revision for enhancement of sentence--Under provisions of subsection (4) of S.25 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997
only Attorney-General, Deputy Attorney-General, Standing Counsel, an Advocate-General or an Advocate of High
Court or Supreme Court appointed as Public Prosecutor, Additional Public Prosecutor or a Special Public
Prosecutor, could file an appeal against acquittal within 15 days of the order of acquittal---Right of appeal against
acquittal having been created by a statute, could not be resorted to by implication or by inference---Police constable,
in the present case, in his official capacity had got criminal case registered against the accused who were acquitted
of the charge by Trial Court---Only the State could file appeal against acquittal and complainant being not included
in the category, of officers mentioned in subsection (4) of S.25 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, could not file appeal
against acquittal of accused---Words used `any Court' in S.417(2-A), Cr.P.C. were only relevant to the Courts
functioning under Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 and it would not extend or refer to Special Courts established
under special laws like Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and right of appeal could not be read in the Statute which did not
specifically provide for---By not providing right to appeal against acquittal to private complainant, no fundamental
right had been infringed---Equality of a citizen before law was to be seen under the particular law---Appeal filed
against acquittal and revision for enhancement of punishment, were dismissed being incompetent.

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2004 MLD 152 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case

THE STATE VS NAWAB KHAN SARHADI

15 of 22 10/15/2020, 11:39 AM
Pakistan Law Site https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/Check

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--25 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--8 ,

----Ss.8(d) & 25---Appeal against acquittal---Allegation against accused was that after their search, audio cassettes
and books were secured from each of them which contained abusive and insulting material to certain sect of Islam
and by such material sectarian hatred was likely to stir up---Trial Court, after considering material available on
record, acquitted the accused---Validity---Mere possession of audio-cassettes and books, was not enough to
constitute offence under provisions of S. 8(d) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Double intention had been provided to
attract ingredients of provisions of S.8(a) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997; first being that person from whose possession
material was secured intended to display or publish the same and secondly said display and publication was made
with intent to stir up sectarian hatred or which was likely to do so---Prosecution in the present case, had only shown
that certain audiocassettes and books were secured, but required said two intentions had not been proved as no
evidence had been led by the prosecution in that behalf nor such inference could be drawn from the evidence
brought on record by the prosecution---Main ingredients of S.8(d) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 having not been
proved, Trial Court had rightly acquitted the accused---In absence of any illegality or irregularity in order of Trial
Court, said order could not be interfered with.

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2003 PLD 704 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case

Sh. MUHAMMAD AMJAD VS THE STATE

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--2-B , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--8 ,

----Ss. 302(a) & 365-A---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.2-.B, 6(b), 7 & 8---Condition precedent for
applicability of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2003 MLD 1401 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case

TAHIR HUSSAIN VS KHALIQ DAR

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--8 ,

----Ss.6, 7 & 8---Compounding of scheduled offence---Cases triable by Courts under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 must
have nexus with Ss.6, 7 & 8 of the said Act---Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 being a Special Law, private complainant or
legal heirs of deceased had no right to compound `scheduled offences' as said offences were mainly against the
State 'and not against individuals---Offences could not be compounded automatically by legal heirs, but it was
always through the Court and Court could decline/withhold the permission to compromise the offence ' by legal heirs
of the victim.

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2003 YLR 1977 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case

AHMED SHAH VS THE STATE

PLD 1998 SC 1445,

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--8 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--SCHEDULE ,

16 of 22 10/15/2020, 11:39 AM
Pakistan Law Site https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/Check

----Ss.6, 7, 8 & Sched.---Jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Courts---Where offences mentioned in the Schedule of Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997 had nexus with the object mentioned in Ss.6, 7 & 8 of said Act---Anti-Terrorism Courts would
have jurisdiction to try the case---If an offender with intention to strike terror in the people or in a section of people
would commit scheduled offence then only he would be subject to jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court.

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2003 PCRLJ 216 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case

THE STATE VS MUHAMMAD UMAR alias CHOTOO

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--19 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--25 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 ,
Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--8 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--417 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C)
1898--439 , Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) 1898--561-A , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--324 ,

------Ss. 302/324---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.6, 7, 8, 19(10) & 25(4)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of
1898), Ss.417, 439 & 561-A---Acquittal of accused tried in absentia---Validity---Prosecution itself had prayed Anti-
Terrorism Court to try accused in absentia, which had tried him accordingly with law governing trial before Anti-
Terrorism Court---Not open to prosecution to contend now that Trial Court ought to have separated the case of
accused from other arrested accused and ought not have framed charge against him and tried him in absentia as no
evidence was available against him---Absconding accused could be tried in absentia by Anti-Terrorism Court under
S.19(10) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Prosecution itself had not produced any material before Trial Court warranting
conviction of accused, thus, his acquittal was fully justified---Judgment of acquittal was not open to exception for
simple reason that memo. of appeal itself contained that prosecution had not been able to collect any material
against accused and there, was no evidence whatsoever connecting him with offence for which he had been
challenged to face trial---High Court dismissed appeal in limine.

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2002 SCMR 1562 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case

AHMAD OMAR SAEED SHAIKH VS THE STATE

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--11 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--28 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--8 ,
Constitution of Pakistan 1973--185 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--109 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan
Penal Code 1860--365-A ,

----S. 526---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.7, 8, 11 & 28---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.365-
A/302/109---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Transfer of case from one District to another---Validity---
High Court, in view of S. 526, Cr.P.C. read with S. 28 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was competent to transfer any
case from one Anti-Terrorism Court to another within or outside the area of Karachi for the protection and safety of
the witnesses and that of the accused---Prosecution also entertained reasonable apprehensions that the. Court
concerned was not fairly and impartially conducting the matter---High Court was justified to transfer the case from
Anti-Terrorism Court at Karachi to Anti-Terrorism Court at Hyderabad so that trial might be held in a more congenial
and tension free atmosphere---Apprehension about safety of the witnesses and prosecution team and with regard to
holding of a fair trial for even dispensation of justice were sufficient grounds for transfer of the case from one Court
to another--Impugned order of transfer not suffering from any legal infirmity leave to appeal was refused.

Head Notes Case Description

17 of 22 10/15/2020, 11:39 AM
Pakistan Law Site https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/Check

Citation Name: 2002 YLR 200 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case

MUHAMMAD RAMZAN VS SUPERINTENDENT, NEW CENTRAL JAIL, MULTAN

PLD 1998 SC 1445,

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--8 , Constitution of Pakistan
1973--199 ,

----Ss. 6, 7 & 8---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), An. 199---Constitutional petition Permissible remissions grant of
accused in his petition had sought direction: against Authorities to include the remission granted from time to time
since after the dare of his arrest and to release him if he had already served out his entire sentence-Motive of
incident was that some time earlier a quarrel had taken place between brother-in-law of the complainant and the
accused on a passage, but a compromise had taken place Incident, in circumstances, was confined personal enmity
---Petitioner/accused was allegedly armed with pistol .30 bore while his co-accused were also armed with fire-arms
and the incident took place at night time and the accused were identified in the light or electric bulb---Incident which
was confined between the two parties and at night time could not have created a sense of fear and insecurity
among the people---Alleged incident constituting an offence had no nexus with the object as given in Ss. 6, 7 & 8 of
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Mere trial by the Special Court constituted under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities
(Special Courts) Act, 1975 would not be sufficient to deprive the accused from remission granted by the Competent
Authorities---Authorities were directed to grant permissible remissions to the accused.

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2002 PCRLJ 1765 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case

GOVERNMENT OF SINDH VS FARAD NASEEM

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--8 , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--14 , Constitution of Pakistan
1973--25 , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--5 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--109 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--120-A ,
Pakistan Penal Code 1860--201 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 , Pakistan Penal
Code 1860--365-A , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--368 ,

----S. 548---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.365-A, 368, 302, 109. 201, 120-A/34 & 29---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of
1997), Ss.7 & 8--General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.3(16)---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 2(1)(b)(c) &
164---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 14, 5 & 25---Production of video cassette of the incident in evidence by
prosecution---Accused applied for obtaining certified copy of video cassette to establish that same was fake and not
genuine---Trial Court allowed such application---Validity---Charge against accused, if proved, would entail awarding
of death sentence, thus, they were entitled to plead that no action detrimental to their life should be taken except in
accordance with law---Right of affected person to be furnished with a certified copy of any part of the record was the
mandatory requirement of laws contained in S.548, Cr.P.C.---Video cassette was a matter expressed through figures
or marks, thus, fell within the purview of expression "document" as defined in ,S.29, P.P.C., Art.2(1)(b) of Qanun-
e-Shahadat, 1984 and S.3(16) of General Clauses Act, 1897---Video cassette being the most important piece of
evidence produced by prosecution was forming part of the record, thus, it was inalienable right of the accused to
receive certified copy thereof, which they were entitled to get by virtue of the provisions contained in S.548, Cr.P.C.--
Principles.

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2002 PCRLJ 1317 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case

Shaikh MUHAMMAD AMJAD VS THE STATE

18 of 22 10/15/2020, 11:39 AM
Pakistan Law Site https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/Check

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--8 ,

----Ss. 6, 7 & 8---Jurisdiction of Anti-Terrorism Court---Scope---Anti-Terrorism Court established under Anti/Terrorism

Act, 1997, shall have the jurisdiction to try an offence if it is a scheduled offence and has nexus with Ss.6, 7 & 8 of
the said Act.

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2001 PLD 521 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case

BASHIR AHMAD VS NAVEED IQBAL

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--8 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--PREAMBLE , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--302 ,

Ss. 6, 7 & 8---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302---Act of terrorism/terrorist act---Death by sprinkling of spirit---
Occurrence took place within boundary walls of house of victim---Case was transferred by Anti-Terrorism Court to
the Court of ordinary jurisdiction---High Court refused to interfere with the order of transfer---Validity---Alleged
sprinkling of the spirit on the person -of the victim was within the boundary walls of the complainant's house---Where
the offence committed was not in public, the element of a striking terror or creating sense of fear and insecurity in
the people, o: any section of the people was not made discernible in the F.I.R and for that matter on the record of
the case as a whole---Offences mentioned in the Schedule should have nexus with the object of. the Act and the
offences covered by sections 6, 7 and 8 thereof---Heinousness

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2001 PCRLJ 1823 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case

HABIB SAIN VS THE STATE

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--8 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--9 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--295-A , Pakistan Penal Code
1860--295-B ,

----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.295-A & 295-B---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.8/9---Ball---
Witnesses in their statements made under S.161, Cr.P.C. had made only allegations of general nature against the
accused and did not say anything specific against him---Main allegation against the accused was that he had given
"Taaviz" to the co-accused women who were on bail---Accused was not nominated in the F.I.R. and he was not seen
doing anything at the alleged place of occurrence and also he did not seem to have any intention of committing an
offence as covered under Ss.295-B & 295-C, P.P.C. being under the influence of Hindu Culture and ignorant about
his own religion--Case of accused called for further inquiry in circumstances and he was admitted to bail
accordingly.

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2001 PCRLJ 581 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case

NOOR KHAN VS JUDGE, SPECIAL COURT, ANTI-TERRORISM, SARGODHA DIVISION, SARGODHA

PLD 1998 SC 1445,

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--23 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--8 ,
Constitution of Pakistan 1973--199 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--34 ,

19 of 22 10/15/2020, 11:39 AM
Pakistan Law Site https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/Check

----Ss. 302/34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss.23, 6, 7 & 8--Constitution of Pakistan (1973),
Art.199---Constitutional petition---Transfer of case to regular Court---Case related to murder due to the previous
murder enmity and the deceased, a public servant, was not killed because he was a Patwari or because of the
performance of his official duties as Patwari--Reasoning of the Special Court that the case was triable by the said
Court because the Patwari was killed when he was on duty was not sustainable as that would mean that when a
public servant was killed while on duty, the case would be triable by Anti-Terrorism Court and when he- was killed
during off duty hours it was not triable by it, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, did not create any such classification---Case
even did not involve the element of terrorism acid had no nexus with the object of the said Act and its Ss.6, 7 & 8, as
it was a simple case of murder due to previous murder enmity and was not committed in a manner which struck
terror or created a sense of fear and insecurity in the people or in a section of people except in the ordinary sense of
insecurity created at the time of commission of every crime ---Anti-Terrorism Court, therefore, had no jurisdiction to
try the case and High Court directed to send the case to the Court having plenary jurisdiction--Constitutional petition
was accepted accordingly.

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 1999 YLR 643 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case

HARIS ABDULLAH VS STATE

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--12 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--8 ,
Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979--11 , Pakistan Penal Code 1860--365-A ,

----Ss.10(4) & 11---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.337-J & 365-A---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII. of 1997), Ss.6, 7, 8 &
12--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199--Constitutional petition---Transfer of case from Special Court to Criminal
Court--Accused had sought transfer of cases pending against them in Special Anti-Terrorism Court to Criminal Court
contending that the cases did not disclose commission of terrorist act--Facts of the cases could not be classified as
terrorist acts to justify assumption of jurisdiction by Special Anti-Terrorist Court, except that certain features
warranted that the cases be decided expeditiously---High Court directed that cases against accused pending in
Special Anti-Terrorism Court be transferred to Court of District and Sessions Judge and be decided within a period
of three months from date of appearance of accused before Court.

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 1999 YLR 2620 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case

ASIF ALI ZARDARI VS STATE

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--23 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--7 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--8 ,

----Ss. 6, 7, 8 & 23---Transfer of case---For declaring an offence to be a scheduled offence and in line with the object
of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, it was to be seen that the offence mentioned in the Sched. had any nexus with the
very object of the said Act for which it had been enacted and that the offence itself was covered by the provisions of
Ss. 6, 7 & 8 of the said Act---Deceased was not on his official duty, but had been killed because of his personal
enmity while he was on his private personal visit---Other deceased was also not on his official duty, but was going to
his village for some personal work--Offence committed with light or heavy automatic weapon had been taken out of
the Sched. of the Anti-Terrorsim Act---Offence alleged in the case, thus, had no nexus with the object of the
provisions of Ss. 6, 7 & 8 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, but was covered by the Schedule to Suppression of
Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975---Case was consequently transferred from Special Court of Anti-
Terrorism Act, 1997 to Special Court of Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975.

20 of 22 10/15/2020, 11:39 AM
Pakistan Law Site https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/Check

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 1998 SCMR 1156 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case

MEHRAM ALI VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN

Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--6 , Anti-Terrorism Act 1997--8 ,

----Sched. & Ss.6, 7 & 8---Terrorist act---Punishment for terrorist act--Prohibition of acts intended or likely to stir up
sectarian hatred---Offences mentioned in the Sched. to the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 should have nexus with the
objects mentioned in Ss. 6 7 & 8 of the Act---Such declaration by Supreme Court, however, will not affect the trials
already conducted and convictions recorded under the Act and the pending trials may continue subject to this order.

Head Notes Case Description

Notes on Cases

September

CLC Notes

YLR Notes

PCrLJ Notes

Journals

September

PLD SCMR

CLD PTD

MLD PLC

CLC YLR

PCrLJ GBLR

Miscellaneous

Circulars

General Orders

Notifications

21 of 22 10/15/2020, 11:39 AM
Pakistan Law Site https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/Check

New Statutes

Federal

Punjab

KPK

Balochistan

Sindh

Copyrights © 2020 by Oratier Technologies (Pvt.) Ltd. (//oratier.tech)

This site is developed & maintained Oratier Technologies (Pvt.) Ltd. (//oratier.tech)

Help (/Login/HelpPage) FAQ's Sitemap

22 of 22 10/15/2020, 11:39 AM