2011 P Cr (PLP)
ASADULLAH alias SHAKIRULLAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 2011 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ASADULLAH alias SHAKIRULLAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 P Cr (PLP) (ASADULLAH alias SHAKIRULLAH — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----Ss. 302/337-A/337-11/440/34/109/114---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6, 7/21-C(7)(f), 21-F, 21-G & 23---Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (XXII of 2000), Ss.4 & 14---Qatl-e-amd, causing Shajjah, rash or negligent act and mischief-Application for transfer of case from Anti-Terrorism Court to Juvenile Court---Contention of accused was that he being minor, could only be tried by court specially constituted under Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, irrespective of the charge under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Deputy Advocate General had submitted that mere juvenility of accused who was charged under Ss. 6 & 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 coupled with other charges of P.P. C., could not take away the jurisdiction of a court constituted under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 having exclusive jurisdiction over the charges of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, which was a special law was enacted for the trial of the scheduled offences provided under the said Act---Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 was also a special law and was for trial of special class of offenders defined thereunder, and said Ordinance provided exclusive jurisdiction to court constituted thereunder in a case where an accused was below the age of 18 years---Said Ordinance being later law, had further provided that its provisions would not be in derogation of any law, but would be in addition to laws prevailing at the moment when said Ordinance, was promulgated---Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was enforced in 1997, much prior to the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, which was promulgated, in 2000---Later law/Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, in circumstances, would never affect provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997---Section 14 of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 had strengthened the view that the court constituted under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 had jurisdiction over the scheduled offence, irrespective of any limit of age or any other class of offenders---Section 21-G, which was latest insertion in Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, had overriding effect over all the related provisions and provided exclusive jurisdiction to the court constituted under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 over the offence defined in said Act by an offender including a child/minor.
- Malik Haq Nawaz for Petitioner.
- Deputy Advocate-General for the State.
- 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Deputy Advocate-General assisted by the counsel for complainant at length. Record of the case perused.
- 3. The learned Counsel for petitioner, with the support of a judgment of. Division Bench of this Court and with reference to some other judgments of the High Courts cited below, submitted that the petitioner/accused is admittedly a minor therefore petitioner/accused can only be tried by the Court specially constituted under the law known as Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (hereinafter called as the Ordinance 2000), irrespective of the charge of Anti-Terrorism Act. He in support of his view referred the judgment of D.B of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2007 and 2002 PCr.LJ 1235, 2008 PCr.LJ 710 (SB), 2005 MLD 353 (Kar) (D.B), and 2003 MLD 431.
- 4. On the other hand the learned Deputy Advocate-General assisted by the counsel for complainant forcefully opposed the petition with the submission that mere juvenility of petitioner/accused, who is charged under section 6/7 of ATA coupled with other charges of P.P.C. cannot take away the jurisdiction of a Court constituted under ATA 1997 having exclusive jurisdiction over the charges of Anti-Terrorism Act (hereinafter called as the Act 1997). They referred (1). 2007 PCr.LJ 1011, (2) PLD 2004 (Lah) 779 (3) 2006 PCr.LJ 921, (4) PLD 2006 Kar 331.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 302/337-A/337-11/440/34/109/114
Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 6, 7/21-C(7)(f), 21-F, 21-G & 23
Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (XXII of 2000), Ss.4 & 14
Qatl-e-amd, causing Shajjah, rash or negligent act and mischief-Application for transfer of case from Anti-Terrorism Court to Juvenile Court
Contention of accused was that he being minor, could only be tried by court specially constituted under Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, irrespective of the charge under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997
Deputy Advocate General had submitted that mere juvenility of accused who was charged under Ss. 6 & 7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 coupled with other charges of P.P. C., could not take away the jurisdiction of a court constituted under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 having exclusive jurisdiction over the charges of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, which was a special law was enacted for the trial of the scheduled offences provided under the said Act
Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 was also a special law and was for trial of special class of offenders defined thereunder, and said Ordinance provided exclusive jurisdiction to court constituted thereunder in a case where an accused was below the age of 18 years
Said Ordinance being later law, had further provided that its provisions would not be in derogation of any law, but would be in addition to laws prevailing at the moment when said Ordinance, was promulgated
Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was enforced in 1997, much prior to the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, which was promulgated, in 2000
Later law/Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, in circumstances, would never affect provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997
Section 14 of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 had strengthened the view that the court constituted under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 had jurisdiction over the scheduled offence, irrespective of any limit of age or any other class of offenders
Section 21-G, which was latest insertion in Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, had overriding effect over all the related provisions and provided exclusive jurisdiction to the court constituted under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 over the offence defined in said Act by an offender including a child/minor.
Judgment & Decree
SAHIB KHAN, J.
Through the petition in hand, petitioner assailed the impugned judgment/order dated 29-4-2010 passed by the Judge Anti-Terrorism Court Gilgit, whereby the learned Judge of Anti-Terrorism Court refused the application under section 23, A.T.A. tiled by the petitioner/accused for transfer of the case pending trial to the court constituted under Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000 on the plea of juvenility.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Deputy Advocate-General assisted by the counsel for complainant at length. Record of the case perused.
3. The learned Counsel for petitioner, with the support of a judgment of. Division Bench of this Court and with reference to some other judgments of the High Courts cited below, submitted that the petitioner/accused is admittedly a minor therefore petitioner/accused can only be tried by the Court specially constituted under the law known as Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (hereinafter called as the Ordinance 2000), irrespective of the charge of Anti-Terrorism Act. He in support of his view referred the judgment of D.B of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2007 and 2002 PCr.LJ 1235, 2008 PCr.LJ 710 (SB), 2005 MLD 353 (Kar) (D.B), and 2003 MLD 431.
4. On the other hand the learned Deputy Advocate-General assisted by the counsel for complainant forcefully opposed the petition with the submission that mere juvenility of petitioner/accused, who is charged under section 6/7 of ATA coupled with other charges of P.P.C. cannot take away the jurisdiction of a Court constituted under ATA 1997 having exclusive jurisdiction over the charges of Anti-Terrorism Act (hereinafter called as the Act 1997). They referred (1). 2007 PCr.LJ 1011, (2) PLD 2004 (Lah) 779 (3) 2006 PCr.LJ 921, (4) PLD 2006 Kar 331.
5. By their nature both the laws e.g. the Act 1997 and Ordinance 2000 are special laws enacted former for the trial of the scheduled offences provided in the Act 1997, the latter for trial of special class of offenders defined under the Ordinance 2000. The relevant provisions providing jurisdiction of juvenile court and its effect and relevancy with other laws is reproduced below:-- Section 4(3) of the Ordinance 2000:
The Juvenile Court shall have the exclusive jurisdiction to try cases in which a child is accused of commission of an offence. Section 14:
The provisions of the Ordinance shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other law for the time being in force.
6. If both the provisions of the Ordinance 2000 reproduced supra considered, it appears that the Ordinance 2000 provides exclusive jurisdiction to the Court constituted under the Ordinance 2000 in a case where an accused below age of 18 years. In the meantime this Act being a later law, further provides and clears the position that its provisions shall not be in derogation of any law, but shall be in addition of laws prevailing at the moment when the Ordinance was promulgated. As stated supra the Act 1997 was enforced in 1997 much prior to the Ordinance 2000 and was fully operative in the related purpose when the Ordinance 2000 was enforced. It is very important to note and mention here that the following two provisions were also contained in the Act 1997 like rest of provisions but the latter law instead of providing an overriding effect over the former law, provided section 14 in the Ordinance. Thus the unambiguous position is that the later law never affects the following two provisions including any other provisions of Act 1997. (A) 21-C(7)(f) A child commits an offence if he receives, generally or specifically instructions or training in acts of terrorism and on conviction shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not less than six months and more than five years. (B) 21-F Notwithstanding any thing contained in any law or prison rules for the time being in force, no remission in any sentence shall be allowed to a person other than a child, who is convicted and sentenced for any offence under this Act unless granted exclusively by the Government.
7. In the circumstances, it will be unfair to presume that the legislature was ignorant about the existence of above provisions in the Act 1997 and committed any mistake by not providing any overriding effect in the latter law. As against to this section 14 in the Ordinance 2000 strengthened the view that the court constituted under Act 1997 is having jurisdiction over the scheduled offence of ATA irrespective of any limit of age or any other class of offenders.
8. Similarly the legislature further to clarify the legal position inserted a new provision as 21 G in the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 through Act-II of 2005 as reported in PLJ 2005 and Federal Statute 2005 which reads as under: 21-G All offences under this Act shall be tried (exclusively) by Anti-Terrorism Court established under this Act. This provision 21-G is latest insertion in the Act 1997 even later law than Ordinance 2000 and undoubtedly overrides all the related provisions and provides exclusive jurisdiction to the Court constituted under Act 1997 over the offences defined in the Act 1997 by an offender including a Child/minor.
9. We therefore, found this petition meritless uphold the impugned order dated 29-4-2010: File. H.B.T./69/Glt.????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.